« Reason Not To Go With Polls | Main | Wingnut Cultists Developing Own Language »

November 15, 2005

Pentagon Admits Using White Phosphorus As Weapon In Iraq

-- by Dave Johnson

News Flash: Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq,

Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November. But they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material was used against civilians.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.

As for previous government statements,
The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorous against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

The department later said its statement had been incorrect.

Posted by Dave Johnson at November 15, 2005 3:31 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pentagon Admits Using White Phosphorus As Weapon In Iraq:

» Pentagon Described White Phosphorus as a CHEMICAL Weapon from Seeing the Forest
The Pentagon was recently forced to admit - after denying - that it had used White Phosphoros (WP) as a weapon in Iraq. So the right-wing defense changed from "we didn't do it" to "it's not a chemical weapon." (See... [Read More]

Tracked on November 21, 2005 1:55 PM


That is why when it comes to military matters, we should all listen to the Pentagon, not State.

I don't think it was ever in doubt that WP was used. It is standard in the inventory of every NATO and former Warsaw Pact country I can think of, and it has been for 60+ years and is very, very useful stuff. The Brits started using (quite hazardously) in WWI. Makes an interesting read, if you want to research it.

White phosphorus it is decidedly not a "chemical weapon" by any standard. It does not create a gas as some unqualified sources have claimed, and it was not used upon civilians.

The bodies in the Italian video did not have wounds that appeared to be consistent with WP exposure. In fact, most of the bodies seemed to be severely decomposed, not burned at all. But don't take my word for it, ask the maggots clearly crawling on the bodies.

WP, according to U.S. Army doctrine, is used as a screening agent, and against enemy equipment, and in the battle of Fallujah, was used as a "potent psychological weapon."

If you read the article, the WP was used to flush the terrorists out.

They know that WP is used for screening attacks, and when it came down around them and they couldn't see, they were scared they were about to be overrun. They panicked, ran and we killed them with high explosive shells. Not chemical warfare, just smart warfare that saved American soldiers form having to root out the insurgents in trench combat.

What do you know: white phosphorus saves lives.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 15, 2005 4:07 PM

I'd love to see you clowns try that bullshit at The Hague. Too bad they don't hang war criminals anymore. Too damn bad.

Posted by: richard [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 15, 2005 5:14 PM


What convention or treaty would the Hague base it's case upon?

Posted by: RTO Trainer at November 15, 2005 5:41 PM

You might read this.

Posted by: richard [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 16, 2005 3:03 AM

1. Foremost, we can't be bound to a treaty we didn't sign.

2. We didn't violate it's provisions anyway.

Posted by: RTO Trainer at November 16, 2005 9:53 PM

Re 1. Yeah, ain't it grand. It was a fantasy anyway. Your sort never (well, almost never) end up in the dock where you belong.

Re 2. Bullshit. And you know it.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 16, 2005 10:31 PM

If I know it, what facts am I ignoring htat indicate otherwise?

Posted by: RTO Trainer at November 18, 2005 4:47 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Remember me?

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

Return to main page