Pentagon admits US used white phosphorus in Iraq

[Genx87]

And how can you possibly excuse the use of white phosphorous in civilian areas where its use is classified as a chemical weapon?

This is a blatent lie.

WP is not a "chemical weapon".

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: BBond
If the use of white phosphorus is OK why did the Pentagon deny that they used it for over a year? Until RAI released irrefutable video evidence that it was in fact used?

Why lie if there's nothing to hide?

😉

To avoid accusations by uninformed masses as per the article which is the topic of this thread.

I'm plenty well informed. It's you Bushies who CHOOSE to be uninformed by refusing to recognize the myriad crimes your liar in chief and his accomplises commit.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: BBond
If the use of white phosphorus is OK why did the Pentagon deny that they used it for over a year? Until RAI released irrefutable video evidence that it was in fact used?

Why lie if there's nothing to hide?

😉

To avoid accusations by uninformed masses as per the article which is the topic of this thread.

I'm plenty well informed. It's you Bushies who CHOOSE to be uninformed by refusing to recognize the myriad crimes your liar in chief and his accomplises commit.

You are delusional, not well informed.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

And how can you possibly excuse the use of white phosphorous in civilian areas where its use is classified as a chemical weapon?

This is a blatent lie.

WP is not a "chemical weapon".

A blatant lie??? So says a lying Bushie. White Phosphorous is a chemical weapon when used in civilian population centers -- like Fallujah.

Last year, during the destruction and massacre the U.S. military perpetrated in Fallujah you Bushies wouldn't even admit that it was happening. Do a search in P&N and read the thread for yourselves. Everything I told you then is now accepted fact, as is this.

Who is the liar?

Was WP used on civilians? Everyone who wants to know the truth can download the documentary and decide for themselves.

"Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre"

Just scroll down a little way for the link to the download.

 

[Genx87]

A blatant lie??? So says a lying Bushie. White Phosphorous is a chemical weapon when used in civilian population centers -- like Fallujah.

Huh? What if it is used out in the desert then what is it? Are you telling us its properties and classification change based on the location it is being used? You really this obtuse?

WP is illegal to use on a civilian population but you name one weapon system that is "legal" to use intentionally on a "civilian" population.

Is this the documentary that talks about flesh melting beneath their clothing?

 

[BBond]

From the link:

REPORTER: Were any chemical weapons used in Fallujah?

JEFF ENGLEHART: From the U.S. military, yeah, absolutely. White phosphorus. Possibly napalm may or may not have been used; I do not know. I do know that white phosphorus was used, which is definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, a chemical weapon.

REPORTER: Is he sure of it?

JEFF ENGLEHART: Yes. It happened.

REPORTER: How can he be certain?

JEFF ENGLEHART: Well, it comes across radio as a general transmission. When it happens like that, you hear it on the radio through -- we have speakers in our trucks -- speakers and then the transmission goes to the speakers, so it's audible. And as they'd say, ?In five [inaudible], we're going drop some Whiskey Pete.? ?Roger. Commence bombing.? I mean, it just comes across the radio, and like, when you hear ?Whiskey Pete,? that's the military slang.

NARRATOR: Contrary to what was said by the U.S. State Department, white phosphorus was not used in the open field to illuminate enemy troops. For this, tracer was used. A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of the 8th of November. [inaudible] will show you in this exceptional documentary, which proves that a chemical agent was used in a massive and indiscriminate way in districts of Fallujah. In the days that followed, U.S. satellite images showed Fallujah burned out and razed to the ground.

JEFF ENGLEHART: The gases from the warhead of the white phosphorus will disperse in a cloud. And when it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning of flesh to the bone. It doesn't necessarily burn clothes, but it will burn the skin underneath clothes. And this is why protective masks do not help, because it will burn right through the mask, the rubber of the mask. It will manage to get inside your face. If you breathe it, it will blister your throat and your lungs until you suffocate, and then it will burn you from the inside. It basically reacts to skin, oxygen and water. The only way to stop the burning is with wet mud. But at that point, it's just impossible to stop.

REPORTER: Have you seen the effects of these weapons?

JEFF ENGLEHART: Yes. Burned. Burned bodies. I mean, it burned children, and it burned women. White phosphorus kills indiscriminately. It's a cloud that will within, in most cases, 150 meters of impact will disperse, and it will burn every human being or animal.

REPORTER: Some footage has shown violations inside mosques, black crosses painted on the walls and on the Koran. Do you know anything about this?

JEFF ENGLEHART: I don't doubt that American soldiers who are frustrated after being involved in combat for a year would have any problems with doing any kind of vandalism. I mean, it's very common. Indiscriminate vandalism was found ? I mean, there was carvings in the walls at Babylon, an ancient structure, a historical monument. It was common for soldiers to carve, you know, ?Hello, mom, I'm from Texas,? on these walls. I just think there's a certain lack of respect within the American military ranks, especially when dealing with soldiers who are frustrated. I personally did not witness any mosque vandalism. Our brigade was good about keeping that very controlled. But I did hear stories. Places such as Samarra, Baghdad, Mosul, mosques being attacked, mosques being vandalized, the Koran being damaged. I think it's very common.

REPORTER: Is it true that you waited for the results of elections, confirmation of victory for Bush, before bombing Fallujah?

JEFF ENGLEHART: I?m glad you brought this question up. That was definitely the case. Even in the ranks, in the military ranks, we knew it was going on. They told us that we were going to wait after the election, the American election, before going into Fallujah. And we had already set up the whole operation, like it was ready to go. And we were waiting for two or three days for the election to be over with. And then when the election was so close between Kerry and Bush, it was always pissing off a lot of the high command, because they wanted to hurry up and get in there and get it going. And they didn't want what happened in 2000 with Gore and Bush, the long drawn-out process that lasted almost a week to find out who won. When Kerry conceded, though, it was like within a matter of a day, it was going, it was happening. That was definitely the case. We waited until after the election. We were told directly from the Pentagon to wait until after the election before going into Fallujah, and that's exactly what we did.

NARRATOR: Alice Mahon was a Labour parliamentarian from 1987 until a few months ago, until she decided to walk out on Westminster. Mrs. Mahon had, since 2003, put forward several Parliamentary inquiries demanding information from the Defense Ministry as to whether the United States had used chemical weapons. And the ministry, after several attempts to deny any knowledge, wrote back on the 13th of June, 2005, with the following: ?I regret to tell you that I am sincerely sorry that this is not the truth, and that now we must correct it. The U.S.A. destroyed their arsenal of napalm used in Vietnam in 2001, but emerging from military reports from Marines in service in 2003, it shows that MK-77 was used. The incendiary bomb MK-77 does not have the same composition as napalm, but it has the same destructive effect. The Pentagon has informed us that these devices are not generally used in areas where civilians are present.?

ALICE MAHON: I didn?t lose my seat. I deliberately stood down, because I didn't want to be part of a government that was conducting an illegal and bloody war against people who had done us no harm whatsoever. Well, I heard from the American military at the beginning of the war, at the beginning of the bombardments of Iraq, there was an admission by the American military that they had used a substance similar to napalm when they first went into Iraq. I put the question down. And as you can see, the reply was ?No, they hadn't.? My government were not aware of it. Now, I'm afraid some of us do not believe everything we're told at the moment, and so I did pursue it, even when I stood down from Parliament. And months later, we did get an admission from the Ministry of Defense, from the minister himself, that a similar substance to napalm had been used in the bombardments of Iraq.

REPORTER: The U.N. convention signed by the U.S. had banned napalm. Is MK-77 very different?

ALICE MAHON: No, it isn't. It has exactly the same effect when it's fired at people. It burns them. It destroys things. It melts bodies. It?s exactly the same effect. And what, of course ? what is in a name if it does this to people? I think the Americans are wrong to use it. I think my government are wrong to help in the cover up of it being used. But, of course, in this war we've seen the United Nations Charter broken and defied over and over again.

REPORTER: Why didn?t the United States ever sign the convention abolishing these weapons?

ALICE MAHON: Well, the United States, of course, do that. They go around lecturing the rest of the world on their rights and responsibilities and have taken note of what the U.N. said. Of course, they had a lot to say to the Iraqi government about obeying United Nations resolutions. They, themselves, think they are above it.

REPORTER: This war started with the intention to look for weapons of mass destruction. Is it not paradoxical that chemical weapons were in the end used by the United States?

ALICE MAHON: Absolutely. The hypocrisy is absolutely stinking. There were no weapons of mass destruction. This was a broken-back dictator who was a threat to no one. In my view, the Americans wanted to control the oil in the region. I'm afraid there is no hiding place from America and Britain in this war. The facts will come out, and Bush and my prime minister will be exposed.

How can you Bush worshippers accept this from your government? How can you excuse this?

This is America but under Bush it looks like Nazi Germany and you people willingly accept that.

You're all despicable. I agree with Uhtrinity, "After reading this thread my only thought is that anyone who could possibly condone blanketing this stuff over an urban area are sick bastards and I am ashamed that you are American citizens."

 

[BBond]

The use of ANY incendiary weapon in civilian population areas is specifically banned since 1980.

WP wasn't used to "paint" areas for targeting, it was used as an offensive weapon in Fallujah. What are you going to try next? Are you going to try to say that Fallujah, a former city of 300,000 that has yet to recover from the all out destruction the U.S. military under their commander in chief George W. Bush, wasn't a civilian population center?

You're delusional kid. I'm sure that if your city was blanketed with WP you'd change your mind in a hurry.

 

[Genx87]

Yup sounds like the same documentary.

It is amazing they talk to a guy who didnt even see combat much less witness this and use him as the source of their proof.

In court that is called Hearsay and not admissible.
Your own article you foolishly linked to to start this joke of a thread stated they were using it for smoke screens and target marking.

Are you now going to contradict your own links?

btw that source in the documentary even backs up your link about using it for target painting when he says "And as they'd say, ?In five [inaudible], we're going drop some Whiskey Pete.? ?Roger. Commence bombing.?

What do you think they were doing? They paint a target with WP and commence bombing.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond
The use of ANY incendiary weapon in civilian population areas is specifically banned since 1980.

WP wasn't used to "paint" areas for targeting, it was used as an offensive weapon in Fallujah. What are you going to try next? Are you going to try to say that Fallujah, a former city of 300,000 that has yet to recover from the all out destruction the U.S. military under their commander in chief George W. Bush, wasn't a civilian population center?

You're delusional kid. I'm sure that if your city was blanketed with WP you'd change your mind in a hurry.

This is right from your first post brainiac

Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases".

Nothing like contradicting yourself in your own thread.

 

[BBond]

You must have missed this part:

Contrary to what was said by the U.S. State Department, white phosphorus was not used in the open field to illuminate enemy troops. For this, tracer was used. A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of the 8th of November. [inaudible] will show you in this exceptional documentary, which proves that a chemical agent was used in a massive and indiscriminate way in districts of Fallujah. In the days that followed, U.S. satellite images showed Fallujah burned out and razed to the ground.

JEFF ENGLEHART: The gases from the warhead of the white phosphorus will disperse in a cloud. And when it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning of flesh to the bone. It doesn't necessarily burn clothes, but it will burn the skin underneath clothes. And this is why protective masks do not help, because it will burn right through the mask, the rubber of the mask. It will manage to get inside your face. If you breathe it, it will blister your throat and your lungs until you suffocate, and then it will burn you from the inside. It basically reacts to skin, oxygen and water. The only way to stop the burning is with wet mud. But at that point, it's just impossible to stop.

REPORTER: Have you seen the effects of these weapons?

JEFF ENGLEHART: Yes. Burned. Burned bodies. I mean, it burned children, and it burned women. White phosphorus kills indiscriminately. It's a cloud that will within, in most cases, 150 meters of impact will disperse, and it will burn every human being or animal.

I wonder why.

:roll:

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: ciba
I don't want to support the use of this nasty stuff, but factual inaccuracies get under my skin.

Originally posted by: BBond
Why lie if there's nothing to hide?

What lie? I didn't see anything in your post that substantiates this accusation. The article says the US denied it (sentence #3), but every quote shows the US admitted use of WP.

Of course, given your first post calling it a "chemical weapon," I think you're more into slinging mud at the administration instead of putting forward coherent and supported arguments.

Edit: Guys, has it really come down to the point where we claim that 'technically' the weapons we use aren't chemical weapons? I guess nukes will soon be OK because uranium is a natural product.

You need to understand that weapons are categorized by function. Firearms, incendiaries, nuclear and biological weapons cause their damage differently and are categorized based on this. Calling WP a "chemical weapon" is like saying a salmon is a bird.

In my understanding, "chemical weapons" include biologicals as well as blister, blood, choking and nerve agents.

Regarding the bolded bits above, where have you been? This has ALWAYS been BBond's MO. He's as insanely partisan a Democrat as Newt Gingrich is a partisan Republican. He doesn't care about facts, circumstances, true or false, he cares solely about rabid loyalty to his "side" and vicious attacks on the other side.

I loathe Bush as much as anyone here, but the war in Iraq isn't a good reason to loathe him. All you have to do is look at his disastrous domestic policy, refusal to enforce the borders, insistence on these half-baked amnesty plans, bizarre Supreme Court nominations (I mean really, that dumb broad wasn't qualified to butter my toast, much less have input on the Supreme Court, for chrissakes!) and his Democrat-like love of spending every dime in sight and many of those that *aren't* in sight to find reasons to hate the bastard.

The saddest part is that the Democrats couldn't manage to muster anyone more compelling than the rubber-faced, position-changing John Kerry to run against him. What a f*cking joke that was, perhaps the only man on the *continent* with less charisma than George W. Bush.

Jason

Someone didn't read. That's OK, I'm guilty of that from time to time. 😉
However, your post is moot.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond
You must have missed this part:

Contrary to what was said by the U.S. State Department, white phosphorus was not used in the open field to illuminate enemy troops. For this, tracer was used. A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of the 8th of November. [inaudible] will show you in this exceptional documentary, which proves that a chemical agent was used in a massive and indiscriminate way in districts of Fallujah. In the days that followed, U.S. satellite images showed Fallujah burned out and razed to the ground.

JEFF ENGLEHART: The gases from the warhead of the white phosphorus will disperse in a cloud. And when it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning of flesh to the bone. It doesn't necessarily burn clothes, but it will burn the skin underneath clothes. And this is why protective masks do not help, because it will burn right through the mask, the rubber of the mask. It will manage to get inside your face. If you breathe it, it will blister your throat and your lungs until you suffocate, and then it will burn you from the inside. It basically reacts to skin, oxygen and water. The only way to stop the burning is with wet mud. But at that point, it's just impossible to stop.

REPORTER: Have you seen the effects of these weapons?

JEFF ENGLEHART: Yes. Burned. Burned bodies. I mean, it burned children, and it burned women. White phosphorus kills indiscriminately. It's a cloud that will within, in most cases, 150 meters of impact will disperse, and it will burn every human being or animal.

I wonder why.

:roll:

All I can say is Jeff wasnt there so take his testimonial with a grain of salt, something I am sure you wont do.

150 meters sounds more like the fuel air bomb that have than an incindary device. I dont even think Napalm will do that kind of damage. This guy not only wasnt there but seems to like to exaggerate things.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally Spewed by: arsbanned
Arms control status

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. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III.

You see when you half ass look at the picture and ASSume things this is what you get. Lets see what the source of this article had to say on its use on the battlefield of Fallujah

Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases".


Hmm that is really interesting isnt it? Lets see what the protocol you are quoting has to say about this.

For the purpose of this Protocol:
1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against

2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.




They were using these weapons to paint targets for direct and non direct fire according to the OPs article. In the protocol they clearly state what is civilian and what is a military target. Terrorists shooting from a building is clearly a military target.

The problem is peoples lack of understanding of what weapon systems do and their knee jerk reactions based on their ideology. Painting targets and dropping a smoke screen is legal under the protocol and is definately not a "chemical weapon" like the OP idioticially proclaimed.

btw I have heard the documentary on this shows some member of the Marines who was part of a security detail recalling how he heard about skin melting through their clothing?

Be interested in knowing what weapon can do that because it sure as hell isnt WP. WP will burn the clothing and skin.

WRONG. The Pentagon has ADMITTED TO USING IT AS AN INCENDIARY WEAPON ON FALLUJA. DO A LITTLE RESEARCH ON IT, YOU'LL SEE.

 

[Genx87]

WRONG. The Pentagon has ADMITTED TO USING IT AS AN INCENDIARY WEAPON ON FALLUJA. DO A LITTLE RESEARCH ON IT, YOU'LL SEE.

The OPs article clearly states they used it as a smoke screen and target marking device.

 

[maluckey]

BBond wrong in a military thread?? No!!!

Everyone Listen, There are plenty of military and former military in these very forums. If you don't understand something, ASK first. You'll show better for it later. Don't make yoursself look dumb if you don't truly enjoy it.

 

[tommywishbone]

Maybe it would help (unlikely I know) to change the minds of the people who seem to think that it's no big deal that we are using WP to remember; the people we are using it against... THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING! For crying out loud... they were sitting around in the middle of a wasteland, living in dirt houses, riding around on a donkey cart and the US invaded, occupied, tourtured and kill those people for NO reason. And now we think it's a good idea to burn them to death. We are officially insane.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: maluckey
BBond wrong in a military thread?? No!!!

Everyone Listen, There are plenty of military and former military in these very forums. If you don't understand something, ASK first. You'll show better for it later. Don't make yoursself look dumb if you don't truly enjoy it.

Ask you for an honest answer? I don't think so. You're so far right you're almost always wrong.

You claim I'm wrong now. Like I was wrong when I told you that seventy percent of Fallujah was destroyed? Yeah, right. I was right then because I know who to believe and when. You're not on that list and you still haven't learned.

Check this out and remember it. In a few months time, just like the destruction of Fallujah, this will be proven to be true too, just like the destruction of seventy percent of Fallujah.

A Debate: Did the U.S. Military Attack Iraqi Civilians With White Phosphorous Bombs in Violation of the Geneva Conventions?

AMY GOODMAN: We have just aired the North American exclusive broadcast of the Italian state broadcaster RAI that today on this first anniversary of the siege of Fallujah broadcasts this documentary. It is called Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre. Here to discuss chemical weapons allegations, we're joined on the telephone by Maurizio Torrealta. He is news editor for the Italian state broadcaster RAI, co-producer of this documentary. He joins us from Italy. Jeff Englehart is with us. He served as an army specialist in Iraq in Fallujah, interviewed in the film. He is joining us from Colorado, maintains the weblog, "Fight to Survive." You can find it at www.FTSSoldier.blogspot.com, on the line with us from Colorado Springs. And on the phone from Baghdad is Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, spokesperson for the U.S. military in Iraq. We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Let us begin with our spokesperson on the phone with us from Iraq, Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan of the U.S. military. Your response to the documentary, Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre?

LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: Well, I did not get a chance to view it. I have heard what was played over your program. And I would say, for the most part, the elements that I heard, for the most part, are tantamount to propaganda, falsehoods and rumors. To address some of that, they're calling white phosphorus an illegal weapon. And that is an error. It's a perfectly legal weapon to use by all conventions of land warfare. The soldier that is stating that it is a chemical weapon and illegal is in error, as is his assertions that elements were waiting for elections and all other types of things about when the attacks were to happen. Again, he's completely in error, and based on his position he would not have any knowledge of the decisions that were made at the national strategic level or at the headquarters of multinational forces of Iraq. So again, he is basing his assumptions off of rumor and hearsay.

AMY GOODMAN: Lieutenant Colonel Boylan, I just wanted to read to you something from Knight Ridder. They are quoting a senior Iraqi Defense Ministry official who requested anonymity because he wasn't an authorized spokesman. This from Knight Ridder. It says, "We had to stop some operations until the U.S. elections were over. The Iraqi government requested support from the American side in the past, but the Americans were reluctant to launch military operations because they were worried about American public opinion. Now their hands are free." And this was a piece that appeared out of Knight Ridder, November 3, 2004, with the headline, "Bush Expected to Move Quickly on Iraq." This after the election.

LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: Again, that is an error. I am one of the individuals who sat in on many of these meetings so that we could plan all the events. Media were pre-positioned for quite a while, watching the buildup of our operations, preparing to go into Fallujah. We were trying to ensure we had perfect targeting so that we could limit the damage. There was the ability to surround the city to allow no one to escape that was considered hostile. So again, there are a lot of assertions and hearsay and innuendo that has been used with Fallujah and on many other cases propagated by people who have not the complete information and are completely wrong.

AMY GOODMAN: So are you confirming that you used white phosphorus in Fallujah, but saying that it's simply not illegal?

LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: White phosphorus has been used. I do not recall it was used as an offensive weapon. White phosphorus is used for marking targets for both air and ground forces. White phosphorus is used to destroy equipment and other types of things. It is used to destroy weapons caches. And it is used to produce a white smoke which can obscure the enemy's vision of what we are doing.

AMY GOODMAN: And you're using it in Iraq?

LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: We have used it in the past. It is a perfectly legal weapon to use.

AMY GOODMAN: Maurizio Torrealta, news editor for the Italian state broadcaster, RAI 24. Your response?

MAURIZIO TORREALTA: Well, the United States, as the UK and Italy, signed the convention about prohibition of chemical weapons. And the convention define precisely that what make forbidden an agent, a chemical agent, is not the chemical agent itself. Because as Lieutenant said, the white phosphorus can be used to light the scene of a battle. And in that case, it's acceptable. But what make a chemical agent forbidden is the use that is done with it. If you use white phosphorus to kill the people, to burn and to block them, people and animals, even animals say the convention that we all sign, Italy, United States and UK, this is a forbidden chemical agent.

And we are full of picture that show bodies of young people, of children, of women which have strange -- particular, they are dead with a big corruption of the skin and show even the bone. And the clothes are intact, untouched. And that shows there has been an aggressive agent like white phosphorus that has done that. And we have all the number of those bodies and the place where they have been buried. So any international organization that wanted to inquire about that has all the tools and information to do it. And even the witness -- the U.S. military that we interview confirmed that the use of white phosphorus was against the population. And we have even picture of the fact that has been told by the helicopter down to the city, not by the ground up in the air to light the scene. Also the images, they spoke by themselves.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeff Englehart, you are the Specialist -- former U.S. Specialist in the Army, a member now speaking out against the war. You are interviewed in this documentary explaining how white phosphorus was used in Fallujah. Can you tell us more?

JEFF ENGLEHART: Oh, yeah. I mean, I definitely heard it being called for. And I even talked to reconnaissance scouts after the siege, and they said they had actually called for it. The Pentagon spokesperson says that they use this for concealment, or some sources say they use it for illumination. But, I mean, I think that's ridiculous, because we would use -- just based on my training as a reconnaissance scout myself, we would use illumination separately, as it?s on exclusive ground. Since my training, we were taught that white phosphorus is used for troops out in the open or to destroy equipment and that it burns and that the only way to prevent the burning is to douse it with wet mud.

To me, it's definitely a chemical weapon in the fact that it burns, and it burns indiscriminately. In fact, the use of white phosphorus violates the Geneva protocol for the prohibition of use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and bacterial methods of warfare. So, I mean, even if the Geneva Protocol says it's illegal, I don't see how we're able to use it and then say that it's used for our own cover or illumination, when it actually could hurt our own troops. So I just think that, from the very top, the big problem with this war is that from the very top to the lowest level soldier, everyone's being lied to. And then the news gets gentrified by the mass media to make it sound like, ?Oh, well, white phosphorus is a good weapon that we can use to help spot targets,? when it's actually designed to burn its victims.

AMY GOODMAN: Lieutenant Colonel Boylan in Baghdad, your response?

LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: Well, part of what he was saying was fading in and out, so I'm not clear on everything he said. But again, I would assert that it is a legal weapon to use. It is not considered a chemical weapon as chemical weapons are described today. And again, he is again in error. And I would stack up my 21 years of training in the military versus his and what his profession is now. All of our chemical weapons have been declared to the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the chemical weapons convention. So he, again, is in error that it is considered a chemical weapon, as are all other individuals asserting that fact.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to read to you from the Geneva Convention on certain conventional weapons, protocol three. ?Protocol and Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons. Geneva, October 10, 1980. Article I, definitions for the purpose of this protocol. One, incendiary weapon means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.? Lieutenant Colonel Boylan?

LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus. Again, I did not say white phosphorus was used for illumination. White phosphorus is used for obscuration, which white phosphorus produces a heavy thick smoke to shield us or them from view so that they cannot see what we are doing. It is used to destroy equipment, to destroy buildings. That is what white phosphorus shells are used for.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeff Englehart, you were a soldier in Fallujah. Your response?

JEFF ENGLEHART: Well, based off where I was at, I wasn't actually involved in direct combat. I was in a tactical attack center. Basically I was danger close, which means 200 meters from a lot of the explosions that were happening, and when we would hear the call for Willy Pete or Whiskey Pete, white phosphorus, huge explosions would hit targets. I just can't conceive how he could say that a white cloud would conceal our troop movement. It's obviously a toxic gas that, when it touches skin, it will burn, it will cause third-degree burns to the bone. So I just don't understand where he's coming up with this assertion. It's hypocrisy, if you ask me.

AMY GOODMAN: Lieutenant Colonel Boylan, though you've just listened to the excerpt of the documentary, you haven't seen the images. They are extremely graphic. The images of clothes that are still intact but the faces burned off, the skin, the arms, these are images of Fallujah.

LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: That can happen from numerous ways and not just from white phosphorus attacks. That can happen from massive explosions. If you look at the car bombs that the terrorists use today, you have the same effects from car bombs from suicide vests. I have personally witnessed these things here in Baghdad. So, you know, to say definitively that it was due to a white phosphorus attack is not supported by any one that I know of nor do you probably have any forensic evidence, nor does the producer of the show have that, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Maurizio Torrealta -- let's ask the Italian editor of the state broadcast RAI that did this documentary, Maurizio Torrealta.

MAURIZIO TORREALTA: Yeah. You can see all what I am talking about in our website, RAINews24.it, and I suggest the Lieutenant to get a look to the streaming of our transmission. You know, we started our research, because we saw that strange picture that showed people dressed and burned, but the dress was not touched by any chemical aggression. And that make impossible to have a comparison between a explosion and other kind of explosion where everything is burned, completely burned. And those pictures, those pictures were very different, very difficult to be analyzed. And that's why we started to work on those pictures, because they show clearly that it was a chemical agent that was aggressive against the skin and all the part of the skin that was connected with water. And I think the soldier that is connected in your transmission can explain that very well, as he did to us.

AMY GOODMAN: Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, the various newspapers around the world are reporting on this RAI documentary that we?ve aired an excerpt of today. Again, RAI 24, the Italian state broadcasters, 24-hour news channel, saying phosphorus burns bodies; in fact, it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone. Quoting from the documentary, "I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone with a radius of 150 meters is done for."

And what we watched through this documentary are the color close-ups of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, again, clothes remaining largely intact, but skin dissolved or caramelized or turned the consistency of leather by the shells. Also, a biologist is interviewed in this documentary, named Mohamed Tarek, who says a rain or fire fell on the city. The people struck by this multicolored substance started to burn. We found people dead with strange wounds: The bodies burned but the clothes intact.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87


All I can say is Jeff wasnt there so take his testimonial with a grain of salt, something I am sure you wont do.

150 meters sounds more like the fuel air bomb that have than an incindary device. I dont even think Napalm will do that kind of damage. This guy not only wasnt there but seems to like to exaggerate things.

He wasn't there? How do you know? Were you there?

Here's a quote from Jeff Englehart that you can find in my previous post.

Basically I was danger close, which means 200 meters from a lot of the explosions that were happening, and when we would hear the call for Willy Pete or Whiskey Pete, white phosphorus, huge explosions would hit targets.

He was there, you weren't. I'll take his word, not yours -- not even with a grain of salt.

 

[Genx87]

Anybody with a brain could read the last few excepts and determine WP was not the likely suspect. If WP came in contact with clothing it would burn right through it like it does skin.

This leads me to believe the people doing the documentary either dont understand what they are reporting are or reporting fud.

btw I like this, you really cant discredit yourself anymore than you already have

JEFF ENGLEHART: Well, based off where I was at, I wasn't actually involved in direct combat.

Gee you dont say?

AMY GOODMAN: Lieutenant Colonel Boylan, though you've just listened to the excerpt of the documentary, you haven't seen the images. They are extremely graphic. The images of clothes that are still intact but the faces burned off, the skin, the arms, these are images of Fallujah.

LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: That can happen from numerous ways and not just from white phosphorus attacks. That can happen from massive explosions. If you look at the car bombs that the terrorists use today, you have the same effects from car bombs from suicide vests. I have personally witnessed these things here in Baghdad. So, you know, to say definitively that it was due to a white phosphorus attack is not supported by any one that I know of nor do you probably have any forensic evidence, nor does the producer of the show have that, as well.



I find it interesting you link to trascripts where they again clearly state they were using it for smoke screens and target marking.

I dont know how much more of this I can take from you. Your inability to understand what you are linking to is uninspiring.

 

[BBond]

The Lt. Col. links them to those. Jeff Engelhart links them to WP. I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Funny that you ingore Engelhart.

I wonder what melted those bodies? Explosions?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond
The Lt. Col. links them to those. Jeff Engelhart links them to WP. I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Funny that you ingore Engelhart.

I wonder what melted those bodies? Explosions?

Who knows but if clothing was left in tact I highly doubt it was WP.

 

[CaptnKirk]

It has been used to defend a position to prevent loss of a unit

1st Cav in the Ia Drang Valley back in '65 owes their survival to the effects of WP on the enemy during sucide attacks by Charlie.

You snooze - you loose. End an attack or break a seige, what's the dif ?



<We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young>
. . is a book about the war in Vietnam, particularly about the role of the 1st Cavalry Division, 7th Battalion in Ia Drang. Ia Drang is the name of a river in South Vietnam and is very near the place that the North Vietnamese troops crossed into South Vietnam on the Ho Chi Minh trail.
In 1965, America was locked in a Cold War with the former U.S.S.R. and China. Several times during the Cold War, it began to "boil", the conflict in Vietnam was one of those times. In 1954, there had been a revolution in Vietnam; the French army had been defeated and the French Colonial government had been thrown out. The Communists controlled Vietnam north of the 17th parallel and non-communists (many of whom had fought on the French side) controlled The South.
In 1956, under the Geneva Accord free elections were supposed to be held in both halves of Vietnam. Diem, the prime minister of South Vietnam, did not want to lose his power to the Communist regime in the north. The U.S. government backed him in this decision and a conflict ensued. The Viet Minh, a group in South Vietnam that wanted a Communist government, engaged in gorilla warfare against Diem and his army and were labeled the Viet Cong. The fight over which government would rule the country escalated. The U.S. first sent in advisers and later sent in troops. The North Vietnamese army also sent in troops.
In the midst of this escalation, the American president, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated. The American people wondered how fit their new president, Lyndon Johnson, was, and he wondered what to do about the situation in Vietnam. As a senator, Johnson had wanted to stay out of Vietnam, but Kennedy had had a very interventionist foreign policy. Johnson did not want to appear "soft" on Communists and decided to put American troops in Vietnam, but did not give them much support, nor did he declare a state of emergency, which would require that the GIs stay in the Army until the conflict was over.
The U.S. Army was unprepared to handle the Viet Cong and anti-guerrilla tactics became the domain of the U.S. Special Forces and Marines. The U.S. Military leaders also wanted a way to attack the sides and rear of the North Vietnamese Army very quickly. Planners at the Pentagon soon came up with a solution, airmobile warfare.
Airmobile warfare is based upon the helicopter and its effectiveness at moving troops at high, mobile, speeds. The 11th Air Assault Division (Test) was created in February 1963 and was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia. Its mission was to create tactics and training techniques for rapid insertion and extraction of troops via helicopters and ways to use the firepower and supplies that helicopters could quickly bring in. Military leaders were soon convinced about the effectiveness and practicality of using airmobile warfare. The 11th Air Assault Division (Test) was renamed the 1st Cavalry Division, 7th Battalion (Airmobile) and, as its commanders were expecting, it was sent to Vietnam. Its mission: to find and kill the enemy.


LZ X-Ray
Landing Zone (LZ) X-Ray was the first skirmish in the Ia Drang Campaign. It was also one of the first battles in the Vietnam War. In the Spanish Civil War troops learned how to use new weapons which they made deadly use of in World War II, the Ia Drang Campaign served a similar role to the Vietnam War. The American troops learned about the almost fanaticism of the Vietnamese troops and the North Vietnamese learned how to defend themselves against the technologically superior American army.
Several LZ's in the area around Ia Drang (a river, ia means "river" in Vietnamese) were identified and compared. LZ X-Ray was decided upon because it could take more Huey Helicopters (eight to ten) than any other LZ, it was an easy approach for the helicopters, and communication wire was spotted in the vicinity, leading the planners to believe that enemy troops were nearby.
On November 14 at 10:48 A.M., the first group of Hueys touched down after twenty-one minutes of prep-fire consisting of artillery, rockets, and grenades. The first company of the 1st Cavalry, 7th Battalion (1/7 Cav, the brigade on this mission into LZ X-Ray) was Bravo Company. Its troops quickly spread out to cover the perimeter of the LZ and patrols were sent out soon afterwards to try and locate enemy soldiers. A prisoner was captured by one of the reconnaissance patrols and informed them that there were three battalions on the mountain who want very much to kill Americans but have not been able to find any.1
At 12:15 P.M., rifle shots were heard coming from the area where the prisoner was captured and the battle began. By 12:45 P.M., Alpha and Charlie companies had landed in LZ X-ray and all of the companies had come into contact with the North Vietnamese troops in the area. One platoon had become isolated and cut off far from the LZ and was fighting for its life without support. Fire support from the nearby LZ Falcon as well as helicopter gunships were called in to help the 1/7 Cav defend itself against the numerically superior PAVN (People's Army of [North] Vietnam) troops.
Throughout that day and into the next the Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, and newly arrived Delta companies held their LZ. During the next day, Bravo company of the 2nd battalion, 7th Cavalry (2/7 Cav) arrived as reinforcements. That afternoon, part of the Bravo 2/7 Cav company was used to rescue the lost, isolated platoon. The troops continued to hold the line into the night when the PAVN began to back off. Foxholes were quickly dug and primitive reinforcements were made.
The next morning, at 6:41 A.M. the PAVN troops withdrew from their positions around LZ X-Ray. They were met with a "Mad Minute" (a one-minute period during which everything is rapidly fired at any possible targets) at 6:55 AM. By this time, the Alpha company of 2/7 Cav and the Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, and Delta rifle companies of 2/5 Cav had also arrived on the scene. After 72 hours, the last of the enemy had been eradicated from X-Ray at the cost of 79 Americans killed in action (KIA) and 121 wounded.
The 1/7 Cav was flown back to Camp Halloway for rest and recovery after the battle while 2/5 Cav and 1/7 Cav's sister battalion of 2/7 Cav were sent on to LZ's Columbus and Albany respectively. The 2/5 Cav was the only one to arrive at its LZ safely, the battle that the 2/7 Cav would have to fight came to be the second in the deadly Ia Drang battles.

LZ Albany
After their apparent loss at LZ X-Ray, the PAVN withdrew, but only momentarily. They would return in even greater strength to ambush the 2/7 Cav on their way to LZ Albany. The 2/7 Cav conducted what many consider "the least airmobile operation that occurred probably in the entire Vietnam War,"2 as it marched on foot towards Albany. The actual reason for this march has never been disclosed, perhaps it was to move the troops away from the Chu Pong mountain because of the B-52 bombing strike, perhaps Albany was just an intermediate stop on a journey to another LZ, we may never know.
Two enemy soldiers were captured by members of the 2/7 Cav and the column of troops was ordered to stop moving. The leaders of the different companies all came up to the head of the column to take orders from the command group. During this time, a third Vietnamese soldier ran off and warned the three battalions in the vicinity. Silently, the three battalions moved into positions to assault the stopped and leaderless column of troops. About 1:10 PM on November 17, the PAVN fired mortars into the column and followed it with an assault from all sides.
Only one leader of a rifle company, Capt. Forrest of Alpha Company, 1/5 Cav (which was temporarily attached to the 1/7 Cav), was able to make it back to his company. He organized his troops and formed a perimeter to prevent them from being overrun. The only other forces to begin organized fighting were a mortar team and reconnaissance platoon that pulled back off of the perimeter to fight with the battalion command group. The other companies were quickly overrun.
The Americans didn't give up though and fought on. They radioed for air and artillery support which they soon received in the form of helicopter gunships, Navy fighter/bombers, and artillery support from other LZ's. All sorts of weapons were fired at extremely close range that was almost on top of the American troops: napalm, rockets, bombs, machine-gun fire,and white phosphorus. This close fire support eventually drove the enemy soldiers out of the area. Sixteen hours after the confrontation began, 155 Americans lay dead and 124 lay wounded. Upon reaching either LZ Albany or LZ Columbus, these soldiers and bodies were evacuated to Camp Holloway.


Conclusion
Like much of the rest of the war in Vietnam, the battles at LZ's X-Ray and Albany can be considered both a win and a loss by both sides. The North Vietnamese could consider it a loss because of their immense death toll, but they could also consider it a win (which they did) because they gained an understanding of how America's new airmobile tactics worked and how to oppose those tactics.
Americans mainly consider it a loss because of the loss of life and in the words of one person: "Although we have redoubled our efforts, we have lost sight of our objective." The American military did gain one important lesson from the Ia Drang campaign, they proved that airmobile warfare worked; "a million American soldiers would ride to battle in Huey helicopters in the next eight years." Another lesson learned from the Ia Drang campaign was the concept of making Vietnam a war of attrition; "He [General Westmoreland] would trade one American life for ten or eleven or twelve North Vietnamese lives, day after day, until Ho Chi Minh cried uncle."
In all, the battles at X-Ray, Albany, and every other battle in Vietnam were a loss to everyone and could and should have been avoided by a less aggressive U.S. foreign policy towards Communist nations.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Genx87

WRONG. The Pentagon has ADMITTED TO USING IT AS AN INCENDIARY WEAPON ON FALLUJA. DO A LITTLE RESEARCH ON IT, YOU'LL SEE.

The OPs article clearly states they used it as a smoke screen and target marking device.

Well, the facts that the government was FORCED to reveal (after the Italians shamed them into it) indicate it was used, at least in Falluja, as an incendiary weapon, in addition to the other things you listed.

Originally posted by: maluckey
BBond wrong in a military thread?? No!!!

Everyone Listen, There are plenty of military and former military in these very forums. If you don't understand something, ASK first. You'll show better for it later. Don't make yoursself look dumb if you don't truly enjoy it.

Heh. This goes further than military hardware.

Arms control status

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. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III.

In any case, it's a public relations disaster (another in an increasingly long line) for Mr. Bush and Co.

 

[Genx87]

Well, the facts that the government was FORCED to reveal (after the Italians shamed them into it) indicate it was used, at least in Falluja, as an incendiary weapon, in addition to the other things you listed.

You are using too broad a brush when you say that. Obviously they were using it as a marking device and smoke screens.

They werent laying it down like Napalm. There is a huge difference in what you are implying.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well, the facts that the government was FORCED to reveal (after the Italians shamed them into it) indicate it was used, at least in Falluja, as an incendiary weapon, in addition to the other things you listed.

You are using too broad a brush when you say that. Obviously they were using it as a marking device and smoke screens.

They werent laying it down like Napalm. There is a huge difference in what you are implying.

The U.S. military, after initially denying they used WP, changed their story. They lied. Here is a story from the Independent UK. The concluding paragraph sums up the problem the U.S. faces from using such weapons on civilian centers like Fallujah and there is a definite admission that WP was used as an offensive weapon as well.

Again, why did they lie if they had nothing to hide?

They lied because they HAD something to hide.

On another note, it's good to see no one is denying any longer that the U.S. military flattened Fallujah. Now WTFU and realize that they used illegal weapons against civilians instead of trying to excuse this, trying to slip this abomination past on technicalities when the evidence proves otherwise.

The fog of war: white phosphorus, Fallujah and some burning questions

By Andrew Buncombe and Solomon Hughes in Washington
Published: 15 November 2005

The controversy has raged for 12 months. Ever since last November, when US forces battled to clear Fallujah of insurgents, there have been repeated claims that troops used "unusual" weapons in the assault that all but flattened the Iraqi city. Specifically, controversy has focussed on white phosphorus shells (WP) - an incendiary weapon usually used to obscure troop movements but which can equally be deployed as an offensive weapon against an enemy. The use of such incendiary weapons against civilian targets is banned by international treaty.

The debate was reignited last week when an Italian documentary claimed Iraqi civilians - including women and children - had been killed by terrible burns caused by WP. The documentary, Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, by the state broadcaster RAI, cited one Fallujah human-rights campaigner who reported how residents told how "a rain of fire fell on the city". Yesterday, demonstrators organised by the Italian communist newspaper, Liberazione, protested outside the US Embassy in Rome. Today, another protest is planned for the US Consulate in Milan. "The 'war on terrorism' is terrorism," one of the newspaper's commentators declared.

The claims contained in the RAI documentary have met with a strident official response from the US, as well as from right-wing commentators and bloggers who have questioned the film's evidence and sought to undermine its central allegations.

While military experts have supported some of these criticisms, an examination by The Independent of the available evidence suggests the following: that WP shells were fired at insurgents, that reports from the battleground suggest troops firing these WP shells did not always know who they were hitting and that there remain widespread reports of civilians suffering extensive burn injuries. While US commanders insist they always strive to avoid civilian casualties, the story of the battle of Fallujah highlights the intrinsic difficulty of such an endeavour.

It is also clear that elements within the US government have been putting out incorrect information about the battle of Fallujah, making it harder to assesses the truth. Some within the US government have previously issued disingenuous statements about the use in Iraq of another controversial incendiary weapon - napalm.

The assault upon Fallujah, 40 miles from Baghdad, took place over a two-week period last November. US commanders said the city was an insurgent stronghold. Civilians were ordered to evacuate in advance. Around 50 US troops and an estimated 1,200 insurgents were killed. How many civilians were killed is unclear. Up to 300,000 people were driven from the city.

Following the RAI broadcast, the US Embassy in Rome issued a statement which denied that US troops had used WP as a weapon. It said: "To maintain that US forces have been using WP against human targets ... is simply mistaken." In a similar denial, the US Ambassador in London, Robert Tuttle, wrote to the The Independent claiming WP was only used as an obscurant or else for marking targets. In his letter, he says: "US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate, lawful and conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or phosphorus as weapons."

However, both these two statements are undermined by first-hand evidence from troops who took part in the fighting. They are also undermined by an admission by the Pentagon that WP was used as a weapon against insurgents.

In a comprehensive written account of the military operation at Fallujah, three US soldiers who participated said WP shells were used against insurgents taking cover in trenches. Writing in the March-April edition of Field Artillery, the magazine of the US Field Artillery based in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, which is readily available on the internet, the three artillery men said: "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions ... and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against insurgents in trench lines and spider holes ... We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents using WP to flush them out and high explosive shells (HE) to take them out."

Another first-hand account from the battlefield was provided by an embedded reporter for the North County News, a San Diego newspaper. Reporter Darrin Mortenson wrote of watching Cpl Nicholas Bogert fire WP rounds into Fallujah. He wrote: "Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused."

Mr Mortenson also watched the mortar team fire into a group of buildings where insurgents were known to be hiding. In an email, he confirmed: "During the fight I was describing in my article, WP mortar rounds were used to create a fire in a palm grove and a cluster of concrete buildings that were used as cover by Iraqi snipers and teams that fired heavy machine guns at US choppers." Another report, published in the Washington Post, gave an idea of the sorts of injuries that WP causes. It said insurgents "reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns". A physician at a local hospital said the corpses of insurgents "were burned, and some corpses were melted".

The use of incendiary weapons such as WP and napalm against civilian targets - though not military targets - is banned by international treaty. Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons." Some have claimed the use of WP contravenes the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which bans 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".

However, Peter Kaiser, a spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which enforces the convention, said the convention permitted the use of such weapons for "military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". He said the burns caused by WP were thermic rather than chemical and as such not prohibited by the treaty.

The RAI film said civilians were also victims of the use of WP and reported claims by a campaigner from Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, that many victims had large burns. The report claimed that the clothes on some victims appeared to be intact even though their bodies were badly burned.

Critics of the RAI film - including the Pentagon - say such a claim undermines the likelihood that WP was responsible for the injuries since WP would have also burned their clothes. This opinion is supported by a leading military expert. John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.org, said of WP: "If it hits your clothes it will burn your clothes and if it hits your skin it will just keep on burning." Though Mr Pike had not seen the RAI film, he said the burned appearance of some bodies may have been caused by exposure to the elements.

Yet there are other, independent reports of civilians from Fallujah suffering burn injuries. For instance, Dahr Jamail, an unembedded reporter who collected the testimony of refugees from the city spoke to a doctor who had remained in the city to help people, encountered numerous reports of civilians suffering unusual burns.

One resident told him the US used "weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud" and that he watched "pieces of these bombs explode into large fires that continued to burn on the skin even after people dumped water on the burns." The doctor said he "treated people who had their skin melted"

Jeff Englehart, a former marine who spent two days in Fallujah during the battle, said he heard the order go out over military communication that WP was to be dropped. In the RAI film, Mr Englehart, now an outspoken critic of the war, says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete ... Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children."

In the aftermath of the battle, the State Department's Counter Misinformation Office issued a statement saying that WP was only "used [WP shells] very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters." When The Independent confronted the State Department with the first-hand accounts of soldiers who participated, an official accepted the mistake and undertook to correct its website. This has since been done.

Indeed, the Pentagon readily admits WP was used. Spokesman Lt Colonel Barry Venables said yesterday WP was used to obscure troop deployments and also to "fire at the enemy". He added: "It burns ... It's an incendiary weapon. That is what it does."

Why the two embassies have issued statements denying that WP was used is unclear. However, there have been previous examples of US officials issuing incorrect statements about the use of incendiary weapons. Earlier this year, British Defence Minister Adam Ingram was forced to apologise to MPs after informing them that the US had not used an updated form of napalm in Iraq. He said he had been misled by US officials.

Napalm was used in several instances during the initial invasion. Colonel Randolph Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, remarked during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003: "The generals love napalm - it has a big psychological effect."

In his letter, Ambassador Tuttle claims there is a distinction between napalm and the 500lb Mk-77 firebombs he says were dropped - even though experts say they are virtually identical. The only difference is that the petrol used in traditional napalm has been replaced in the newer bombs by jet fuel.

Since the RAI broadcast, there have been calls for an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the battle of Fallujah. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has also repeated its call to "all fighters to take every feasible precaution to spare civilians and to respect the principles of distinction and proportionality in all operations".

There have also been claims that in the minutiae of the argument about the use of WP, a broader truth is being missed. Kathy Kelly, a campaigner with the anti-war group Voices of the Wilderness, said: "If the US wants to promote security for this generation and the next, it should build relationships with these countries. If the US uses conventional or non-conventional weapons, in civilian neighourhoods, that melt people's bodies down to the bone, it will leave these people seething. We should think on this rather than arguing about whether we can squeak such weapons past the Geneva Conventions and international accords."

Bush invaded Iraq on false evidence of WMD. America's reputation was beschmirched badly enough by that. Then the torture at Abu Ghraib, the same prison Saddam used for torture further destroyed our reputation worldwide. Now banned weapons used on civilian population centers.

How low does the Bush administration have to sink, how much damage do they have to do to America's reputation before you people WTFU and demand accountability for the war crimes being done in YOUR name?