Concerns white phosphorus used in Afghan battle

[ginge51]

KABUL – Doctors voiced concern over "unusual" burns on Afghan villagers wounded in an already controversial U.S.-Taliban battle, and the country's top human rights groups said Sunday it is investigating the possibility white phosphorus was used.

The American military denied using the incendiary in the battle in Farah province — which President Hamid Karzai has said killed 125 to 130 civilians — but left open the possibility that Taliban militants did. The U.S. says Taliban fighters have used white phosphorus, a spontaneously flammable material that leaves severe chemical burns on flesh, at least four times the last two years.

Using white phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is considered legitimate under international law, but rights groups say its use over populated areas can indiscriminately burn civilians and constitutes a war crime.

Afghan doctors told The Associated Press they have treated at least 14 patients with severe burns the doctors have never seen before. The villagers were wounded during last Monday's battle in Farah province.

Allegations that white phosphorus or another chemical may have been used threatens to deepen the controversy over what Afghan officials say could be the worst case of civilian deaths since the 2001 U.S. invasion that ousted the Taliban regime.

In Kabul on Sunday, hundreds of people marched near Kabul University to protest the U.S. military's role in the deaths. Protesters carried signs denouncing the U.S. and chanted anti-American slogans.

The incident in Farah drew the condemnation of Karzai, who called for an end to airstrikes. The U.S. has said militants kept villagers captive in hopes they would die in the fighting, creating a civilian casualties

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090510/...as_afghanistan

Whatever any1 says it was used in Iraq, Palestine and now Afghanistan.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Afghan doctors told The Associated Press they have treated at least 14 patients with severe burns the doctors have never seen before. The villagers were wounded during last Monday's battle in Farah province.

Allegations that white phosphorus or another chemical may have been used threatens to deepen the controversy over what Afghan officials say could be the worst case of civilian deaths since the 2001 U.S. invasion that ousted the Taliban regime.

?

[b_133]

WP is a smokescreen agent ffs. It's the most effective one in the world and the most common one too.
There's no need to make a ruckus about it every time someone uses WP - the importance lies in what shell is being used, as some shells would be considered incendiary weapons under the Geneva Convention but others are completely legal and designed to produce smoke screens which are the shells the U.S probably uses unless it wanted to burn people alive in which case there would be more than 14 patients and they wouldn't survive it.

It's tough that it has to be used over populated areas because guerillas choose to fight from there but in that case the insurgents are to blame for the damage it causes.

I really wish the media would be a little more accurate on this entire subject.

[2-D Ron]

WP is a smokescreen agent ffs. It's the most effective one in the world and the most common one too.
There's no need to make a ruckus about it every time someone uses WP - the importance lies in what shell is being used, as some shells would be considered incendiary weapons under the Geneva Convention but others are completely legal and designed to produce smoke screens which are the shells the U.S probably uses unless it wanted to burn people alive in which case there would be more than 14 patients and they wouldn't survive it.

It's tough that it has to be used over populated areas because guerillas choose to fight from there but in that case the insurgents are to blame for the damage it causes.

I really wish the media would be a little more accurate on this entire subject.

It can also cause multiple Organ Failure if exposed to it for a given amount of time, inhaled, ingested or through bodily contact.

[Visna]

I'm no military buff, but I'm sure someone can enlighten me. Isn't there something else that can be used? Because it clearly sparks a controversy every time that damn thing is used, and since it can really mess people up, maybe it would be an idea to use something else?

[b_133]

I'm no military buff, but I'm sure someone can enlighten me. Isn't there something else that can be used? Because it clearly sparks a controversy every time that damn thing is used, and since it can really mess people up, maybe it would be an idea to use something else?

The thing is, every smoke producing agent is going to cause damage to people who are exposed to it.
There are other agents that are mainly types of acid and chlorides and they all cause damage. Most other agents would cause acid burns which are not much better than the damage done by WP.

In the end of the day WP is the most common agent in use, every army in the world uses WP either in shells or simple smoke grenades and it has been the case for decades.
It only became so controversial following the U.S invasion of Iraq where civilians got exposed to it, therefore the logical conclusion is that the fault is with the insurgents not with a conventional army that is not supposed to be fighting in a heavily populated city.
When they'll make some special smokescreen that doesn't cause any damage to people and is just as effective i'm sure the U.S, Israel, Russia etc and others who have been 'accused' of using WP will be the first to start replacing WP with it, cause i sincerly believe none of them have used WP with the intention of burning people otherwise they would use Anti-personnel WP shells.

[danzig]

It can also cause multiple Organ Failure if exposed to it for a given amount of time, inhaled, ingested or through bodily contact.

So can a 2000lb bomb accidently falling on your house, so can a 2000lb falling on the target 2 houses down, so can stray bullets from cross fire, so can IEDS, so can shrapnel fragments from grenades, rpgs etc...the point being every aspect of war *can* cause serious harm to civilians.

Only if you accept that armed resistance to illegal invasions is illigitimate. If not then surely the invasion which caused the resistance is to blame. After all, the right to self defense during an occupation is contingent on the legitimacy of the occupation.

All well and good but Afghanistan was not an illegal invasion, its quite different then Iraq.

[Bovril]

All well and good but Afghanistan was not an illegal invasion, its quite different then Iraq.

Hmmm... we'll leave that for another thread shall we. I'm strongly inclined to disagree, but what the hey.

[Event Horizon]

So can a 2000lb bomb accidently falling on your house, so can a 2000lb falling on the target 2 houses down, so can stray bullets from cross fire, so can IEDS, so can shrapnel fragments from grenades, rpgs etc...the point being every aspect of war *can* cause serious harm to civilians.



All well and good but Afghanistan was not an illegal invasion, its quite different then Iraq.

Not in the fact that you invaded the country, and used WP in areas with civilians present.

It is understandable that you will use the law to excuse your actions from punishment, but you need to ask yourself if this is right?

Above all you need to ask yourself what is the premise for your war against extremists if you continue to subject civilians to harm, other than revenge?

Important point imo, irrespective of legal technicalities.

[Visna]

So can a 2000lb bomb accidently falling on your house, so can a 2000lb falling on the target 2 houses down, so can stray bullets from cross fire, so can IEDS, so can shrapnel fragments from grenades, rpgs etc...the point being every aspect of war *can* cause serious harm to civilians.

Yeah, but the difference is that the use of WP is supposedly only because of a lack of alternatives. All the other examples you mentioned are more or less designed to mess things up, unlike WP which is "benign" but with some unfortunate side effects when it comes in contact with skin.

[Bovril]

I guess its still controversial because of the visceral horror of its effects. I read a book by Robert Fisk in which he described going into a hospital in Lebanon. There was a dead baby in a bucket of water. He asked the doctor why it was in the water. The doctor took it out and before long the holes the phosphorus had burned has smoke emerging from them once again.

[mrmouth]

Well, its controversial because of ignorance. Yeah, its an ugly way to go, if you do indeed die from exposure, but so is having your head sawed off, and I don't remember the outrage over that, like you see with this.

People need to understand, WP was never designed to be a offensive weapon. It was used as such, on villages in Vietnam, that were aiding or harboring the enemy, in order to render those safe havens useless, mainly because those villages were made of wood. So people died and were scarred for life. But WP or not, they would have surely died if the air force had used anything else its its arsenal.

As far as using it today, its use is cleared by military lawyers. Its fairly complicated, but essentially, as long as it is not expressly used as a offensive weapon, there are no issues with using it for what it was designed for. Its not a chemical weapon, as some human rights groups constantly claim.


And quite honestly, the Taliban is playing on this ignorance.

[The Alcotroll]

Further to what Barnaby has said- I'd use WP to smoke off an open area in order to conceal movement of troops, or more likely as a deception plan to fool the enemy into anticipating an attack from that direction. It's only useful as a prelude to a firefight- or to conceal a withdrawal at the end of a failed one.
Dropping smoke on top of an enemy position would be utterly pointless, because it would reduce my own weight of fire and allow the enemy to manouevre and relocate without hindrance. As a weapon it's piss-all use; certainly compared to bombs and bullets (which are in far greater supply in any case).