Willy Pete alleged to have been used in Falluja

[Sergei]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Oh dear. First you tell me what I mean, then you tell me I haven't read a source I've posted. I'm afraid this would make you look obnoxiously arrogant even if you were not completely wrong.

You, of course, are not obnoxiously arrogant, and thus do not deserve such treatment. Oh, wait. You are, and you do.

Originally posted by John D Salt:

It's pretty clear you don't know much about WP, but it is used in smoke and signalling munitions.

According to your logic, a stick of dynamite is mining equipment, a knife is a kitchen utensil, and Zyklon B is pesticide. Yet they can all be used to kill people. Either incidentally or intentionally.

Same here. WP can and has been used as an incendiary weapon, and Abbot even tosses off when he thinks of it - a true mark that there is something wrong with it.

When a military source states that

WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out

it is clear that we are not talking about

munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems.

It is counterfactual and intellectually dishonest of you trying to deny that.

[flamingknives]

Considering the way laws in general and weapons conventions in particular work, "counterfactual and intellectually dishonest" doesn't really apply.

Reading the protocol in isolation to this thread (which I did a couple of weeks ago), it is very clear that the wording is intended to exclude WP from being an incendiary weapon, as it is designed as a screening agent.

The key contention is whether it is initial design or deliberate use which counts for classification.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The key contention is whether it is initial design or deliberate use which counts for classification.

I think it is initial design. Restricted weapons are described as those that are "primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons".

As for the exempt munitions "illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems" is pretty much what WP is, except for tracers. What else could they have been refering to?

It doesn't matter. As I pointed out earlier Protocol III doesn't actually ban anything. Even under Sergie's interpretation use in Falluja would not have been a violation.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

Oh dear. First you tell me what I mean, then you tell me I haven't read a source I've posted. I'm afraid this would make you look obnoxiously arrogant even if you were not completely wrong.

You, of course, are not obnoxiously arrogant, and thus do not deserve such treatment. Oh, wait. You are, and you do.

</font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

[snips]

As for the exempt munitions "illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems" is pretty much what WP is, except for tracers. What else could they have been refering to?

Errrh... Red Phosphorus?

All the best,

John.

[Lee]

WP is *not* a chemical weapon as in mustard gas, sarin, VX nerve gas, etc.

And it is incredibly dumb and ignorant for anyone to try to put it

in such a category.

Paying any attention to what socialist reporters say about how the U.S. fights

any war is an utter and complete waste of time, as they will invariably be against

the U.S. (because we are not a socialist country) and try to make us look like

the bad guys any way they possibly can. This attempt at "controversy" over

something as stupid as WP is a perfect example.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Oh, yeah, and can I expect you to be writing a letter of complaint to the nearest Italian Embassy protsting at their army fielding an "illegal weapon"? And if not, why not?

Why would I? Seriously, I'm not protesting to the use of WP. I'm not claiming that it is illegal, either. I have only proven that there IS an international treaty that bans its use as an incendiary weapon to kill civilians. You seem to have a problem understanding this and repeating your absurd misconceptions. The following is indicative of how even you disagree with your own logic:

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Molotov cocktails are incendiary weapons.

According to yourself, this cannot be correct because Molotov coctails are, first and foremost, obscurants. The Finnish Winter War infantry doctrine called for their use to blind tanks, not set them afire.

However, as any intelligent person would admit (and as you just did), just because they have one function, doesn't mean that they couldn't ALSO be used as incendiary weapons (to good effect, as was found out). The same goes with WP. But you are free to disagree with yourself.

[SSgt Viljuri]

Incendiary weapons are among the FDF's arsenal too, Sergei.

And I'm not talking about incineration pine cones... Maybe a next pet project for Tarja et al to ban?

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by Lee:

WP is *not* a chemical weapon as in mustard gas, sarin, VX nerve gas, etc.

And it is incredibly dumb and ignorant for anyone to try to put it

in such a category.

Paying any attention to what socialist reporters say about how the U.S. fights

any war is an utter and complete waste of time, as they will invariably be against

the U.S. (because we are not a socialist country) and try to make us look like

the bad guys any way they possibly can. This attempt at "controversy" over

something as stupid as WP is a perfect example.

Lee,

You're blaming the messenger and expecting the entire world to hew to a legalistic definition. Whether or not WillyP is considered in the minds of most - i.e. Iraqis and people throughout the world thinking about whether the U.S. presence there is a good thing or not - has very little to do with the Geneva convention, and everything to do with common human perception of war, chemicals, and death.

WP may primarily be an obscurant, but it also burns in a mean, nasty, and scary way. Almost any one with a high school education understands intuitively a material that does something like that does not occur in nature, and so is a man-made chemical.

If U.S. forces are using WP to take advantage of its ability to burn and create fear, then U.S. forces are using chemical weapons in the minds of most people. You can call them ignorant if you want, but that's the opinion of a vast majority, and there are risks associated with ignoring the majority in just about any human society.

Given that the U.S. invaded Iraq on the pretext of Iraqi development of nasty nuclear and chemical weapons, and the well-known absence of them in fact, U.S. forces using WP are setting themselves up for a hypocrytical trap. In the minds of most people thinking about the Iraq conflict, it is evidence of a double standard, if the U.S. invades Iraq on grounds chemical weapons in the hands of the Iraqi regime is a bad thing, and then turns around and uses a really nasty chemical weapon and justifies it on legal grounds, while survivors point to really horrid burn wounds on international cable television.

If an Italian news agency reports on the use of WP in Falluja, and frames the report in terms of "Look, the U.S. used a nasty chemical weapon against the insurgents" the Italian news agency is just doing its job. In the minds of most Italians, and indeed most people in the world, the distinction you are drawing between WP and "illegal" weapons does not exist. Why should an Italian news agency keep to a definition of "illegal" weapons that the vast majority of its own viewers does not accept?

The point behind the news report was not "Aha, the U.S. violated the Geneva convention, let's set up a tribunal and hang some people for war crimes." It was: "See, the U.S. used a nasty chemical weapon in Iraq. Kind of makes you wonder about U.S. claims they try to minimize the damage."

The problem here is not Socialism, but perceptions of morality, i.e., right and wrong. The U.S. military perception of right and wrong in some ways differs vastly from the moral perceptions of the people they are trying to wind "the hearts and minds", and indeed of most of the world.

The practical result in narrow terms is that, most likely, the Italians are going to yank the 2,500 or so soldiers it has in Iraq, and if things really go to heck in a handbasket the U.S. will start having trouble running supply to the Middle East through Italian bases and air space.

That price of using WP may not be threatening enough to U.S. military interests for the U.S. military to reject the use of WP. The lives of the 2-3 dozen U.S. infantrymen may be more valuable to the U.S. war effort, than the potential loss of 2,500 pairs of Italian boots on the ground. That's a judgement call.

But to use WP against the Iraq insurgency and then to assume the rest of the world will just accept it, and may not react negatively to it, is narrow-minded and in a lot of ways just dumb.

[akd]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

WP may primarily be an obscurant, but it also burns in a mean, nasty, and scary way. Almost any one with a high school education understands intuitively a material that does something like that does not occur in nature, and so is a man-made chemical.

Things don't explode in nature. Well, not usually. Since we decided to move away from the sword and axe, all weapons have taken an unfortunate (barbaric?) turn towards the chemical.

If U.S. forces are using WP to take advantage of its ability to burn and create fear, then U.S. forces are using chemical weapons in the minds of most people. You can call them ignorant if you want, but that's the opinion of a vast majority, and there are risks associated with ignoring the majority in just about any human society.

And CS is used to burn (eyes and lungs) and sow fear and panic (causing dispersion). Without a doubt, the nebulous majority can be led to believe that CS is a chemical weapon (in fact, I suspect this is already true). So where does this leave us? Toss good 'ole non-chemical TNT into the crowds instead?

Given that the U.S. invaded Iraq on the pretext of Iraqi development of nasty nuclear and chemical weapons, and the well-known absence of them in fact, U.S. forces using WP are setting themselves up for a hypocrytical trap. In the minds of most people thinking about the Iraq conflict, it is evidence of a double standard, if the U.S. invades Iraq on grounds chemical weapons in the hands of the Iraqi regime is a bad thing, and then turns around and uses a really nasty chemical weapon and justifies it on legal grounds, while survivors point to really horrid burn wounds on international cable television.

Come now, leaving the legitimacy of the pretext aside, exactly what could a terrorist or rogue nation do with White Phosphorous?

If an Italian news agency reports on the use of WP in Falluja, and frames the report in terms of "Look, the U.S. used a nasty chemical weapon against the insurgents" the Italian news agency is just doing its job. In the minds of most Italians, and indeed most people in the world, the distinction you are drawing between WP and "illegal" weapons does not exist. Why should an Italian news agency keep to a definition of "illegal" weapons that the vast majority of its own viewers does not accept?

They shouldn't. And the U.S. should disregard Italian Television's rules for warfare for the sake of both U.S. and Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians. There is no better example than Fallujah of the fallacy of heading international outrage about collateral damage.

The point behind the news report was not "Aha, the U.S. violated the Geneva convention, let's set up a tribunal and hang some people for war crimes." It was: "See, the U.S. used a nasty chemical weapon in Iraq. Kind of makes you wonder about U.S. claims they try to minimize the damage."

I still have mpt seen anything that suggests white phosphorous is more destructive than high explosive.

The problem here is not Socialism, but perceptions of morality, i.e., right and wrong. The U.S. military perception of right and wrong in some ways differs vastly from the moral perceptions of the people they are trying to wind "the hearts and minds", and indeed of most of the world.

Certainly. So what weapons are not banned for use against civilians under international law/collective opinion?

The practical result in narrow terms is that, most likely, the Italians are going to yank the 2,500 or so soldiers it has in Iraq, and if things really go to heck in a handbasket the U.S. will start having trouble running supply to the Middle East through Italian bases and air space.

That price of using WP may not be threatening enough to U.S. military interests for the U.S. military to reject the use of WP. The lives of the 2-3 dozen U.S. infantrymen may be more valuable to the U.S. war effort, than the potential loss of 2,500 pairs of Italian boots on the ground. That's a judgement call.

But to use WP against the Iraq insurgency and then to assume the rest of the world will just accept it, and may not react negatively to it, is narrow-minded and in a lot of ways just dumb.

They'd be just as dead if they'd dropped a JDAM, and the Italian Press would be just as "outraged" (though they would lack a new headline for that day and might have to fall back on a previous one). There is no story here other than that innocent civilians were killed, which is in and of itself as horrible as it needs to be (unless you are an Italian journalist).

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sergei:

[snips] I have only proven that there IS an international treaty that bans its use as an incendiary weapon to kill civilians.

You have never proved any such thing; you have merely demonstrated your ability to misinterpret a passage to convince yourself that it does not say what it plainly says. As well as the logic of Humpty-Dumpty, you now seem to be appealing to the logic of the Bellman, "what I tell you three times is true". Yet you cannot offer any response to the challenge to find a respectable source that agrees with your crackpot opinion. Why do you think that might be?

Originally posted by Sergei:

You seem to have a problem understanding this and repeating your absurd misconceptions. The following is indicative of how even you disagree with your own logic:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

Molotov cocktails are incendiary weapons.

According to yourself, this cannot be correct because Molotov coctails are, first and foremost, obscurants. The Finnish Winter War infantry doctrine called for their use to blind tanks, not set them afire.

</font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by akd:

Things don't explode in nature. Well, not usually. Since we decided to move away from the sword and axe, all weapons have taken an unfortunate (barbaric?) turn towards the chemical.

Y'know, I think even swords and axes are made of chemicals.

Originally posted by akd:

And CS is used to burn (eyes and lungs) and sow fear and panic (causing dispersion). Without a doubt, the nebulous majority can be led to believe that CS is a chemical weapon (in fact, I suspect this is already true). So where does this leave us? Toss good 'ole non-chemical TNT into the crowds instead?

CS is indeed classified as a chemcial weapon, and banned under the 1925 Geneva gas protocol for use in warfare. That doesn't preclude its use for police work, but if the situation qualifies as armed conflict, then international law would prefer you to blow people up rather than CS-gas them, thank you.

None of which, of course, detracts from the main point that you'd have to be crazy on acid to believe that WP was a chemical weapon.

All the best,

John.

[Bigduke6]

akd:

To take your questions in the order that you asked them:

"So where does this leave us? Toss good 'ole non-chemical TNT into the crowds instead?"

That's certainly an option. The most important factors in deciding are:

1. How much does the weapon allow you what you need to do militarily?

2. How much will using that weapon harm your war effort (if at all) outside the realm of military activity?

For instance, using an M109 battery to drop "completely legal" HE submunitions on an bunch of irate Basra youth will definately disperse the crowd with zero risk to coalition forces, but if it converts the city from a peacable place to a hotbed of the insurgency, and chases the British contingent out of Iraq in the bargain, would that be a wise choice of weapons?

Come now, leaving the legitimacy of the pretext aside, exactly what could a terrorist or rogue nation do with White Phosphorous?

First choice would be to use it against U.S. forces, second choice would be to use it against U.S. Arab allies, and third choice would be to use it against just any one as a terror weapon.

Unfortunately for the U.S. side, there are very few weapons the insurgency cannot use, and risk meaningful loss of support. This is primarily because the insurgents and their supporters see themselves in a David vs. Goliath contest where the insurgents must fight with whatever weapon is available to them. There are limits of course, attacking an Arab wedding may well have been one of them.

Unfortunately, that does not remove the "political" baggage attached to some of the weapons in the U.S. arsenal.

They shouldn't. And the U.S. should disregard Italian Television's rules for warfare for the sake of both U.S. and Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians. There is no better example than Fallujah of the fallacy of heading international outrage about collateral damage.

You seem to be saying the U.S. policy should be to ignore international (and uncommitted Iraqi) opinion, and just drive forward for a military victory. Do I get you right?

Certainly. So what weapons are not banned for use against civilians under international law/collective opinion?.

All weapons, obviously. The generally prevailing opinion worldwide is that it is wrong to kill civilians in a war.

So, if you do kill civilians in a war and it's important for the war to be morally justified in the eyes of your populace, your army, international opinion, whatever, you have to be able to demonstrate killing the civilians was necessary given the greater goals of your war effort.

The insurgents have it very easy in that forum of opinion. Most people in most places see the insurgents as radical fanatics fighting to get foreign invaders out of their country. The legitimacy of the use of violence, pretty much any violence, to resist foreign invaders is pretty much agreed upon throughout most societies in most times in history.

The U.S. forces have a much tougher challenge: (assuming public opinion means something). The U.S. need to convince people killing civilians by accident is for the greater good of the country those civilians were killed in. Possible, but a lot harder to do. Using WP in the process makes that case a bit more difficult to prove.

There is no story here other than that innocent civilians were killed, which is in and of itself as horrible as it needs to be (unless you are an Italian journalist).

Well, I disagree, and I strongly suspect if we did a worldwide poll the vast majority of those surveyed would disagree with you as well.

The story here is that U.S. forces used a chemical substance in a war in a country, that the U.S. invaded to keep chemical weapons out of.

The issue is not civilian death - look at all the dead civilians in Chechnya and Sinkiang province and Congo and Ethiopia and Columbia and so on and so forth that don't get reported on, by the U.S. or Italian media or any one else.

The issue is U.S. forces and chemical weapons. It's possible to wish it were otherwise, and it's even possible to demonstrate legalistically that isn't the case. But it won't change the fact that the story has death, violence, U.S. forces, and a nasty chemical compound responsible for the death and violence.

That's a pretty interesting mix of information for people unconvinced of the validity of the U.S. presence in Iraq. That definately includes most Italian media consumers. So with them, the story definately is worth reporting.

All of which brings me back to my basic point: CMSF really needs media, otherwise it will lack a major brake on U.S. forces in simulation of limited war.

It almost would be like making CMBB with Tigers, but forgetting to give the Soviets tungsten ammunition.

I can see it now:

The Syrian hq is laser designated, the T-72s are painted on thermals, and the U.S. ueber-snipers have the hapless Syrian commandos in their super NODs sights.

But the Syrian player (a real rotter) bought a European cable television crew with three handcams and its own night vision capacity. The Syrian player put them on a hill, and right next to the camera crew he dug in AT-14s. :mad:

Sure the U.S. player can wipe them off the map, but every time the camera crew gets LOS to a dead Syrian, the U.S. side loses VPs. :mad:

Every time the camera crew gets LOS to a wounded U.S. soldier, never mind a dead one, the U.S. side loses even more VPs. :mad:

It's possible to try and kill the camera crew, but they're split up and you have to get them all at once, because if there is even one survivor that journo will hightail it off the battlefield and report in detail about how U.S. forces target media.. :mad:

Which would almost certainly lead to the worst possible outcome of any egagement in Iraq - the absolute demolition of the career advancement potential of the U.S. field grade officers involved. :eek: Huge U.S. VP hit for that, obviously.

And if the Syrian manages to torch a U.S. vehicle, and the camera crew spots it...game over dude!

Now THAT would be a simulator!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

If you feel the need to shore up your idiot misconceptions by adding more idiot misconceptions to them, there's very little I can do to help you, but the idea that Molotov Cocktails are designed to function mainly as obscurants is not one I subscribe to.

Käkelä 2000, page 155:

The pamphlet given to troops tells, that the Molotov was meant to be one of the instruments of infantry, which one man could instantly blind a tank and that way temporarily reduce or paralyze its ability to fight, making it easier to destroy it with more Molotovs, handgrenades, bundled explosives and mines.

...before the war started, the line of thinking clearly has been that the Molotovs would be used to create a blinding smoke to "shut the sighting holes" of the turret, after which men would attack the tank with explosives.

Not for once do the pioneer-technical instructions mention, how breaking a lit Molotov on the deck grill of a hot engine compartment would set the Soviet tank ablaze.

Maybe you would like to present more of your idiot misconceptions, John?

Originally posted by John D Salt:

The definition of "incendiary weapon" used in the protocol under discussion may not match your definition, nor the dictionary definition, but it is quite clear, and it excludes obscurants.

Once again, WP in itself is neither incendiary weapon nor obscurant, but it can be used for both, just like a Molotov.

However, since you're too obsessed with your haughtiness to be influenced by facts and reason (possibly because of some political agenda, witnessed by your repeated mentioning of Italians), I'm going to leave it here.

[Romulus]

John,

I have to congratulate with you for your Italian reading skills. The translation of the quote from the site of the Italian DoD is correct.

Having said that, I can't see what that has to do with the facts reported by the RAI journalists. I am sure you know that those 40 mm grenades are employed with the M203 grenade-launcher so I doubt that they can be used to massively bomb buildings full of Iraqi civilians so as the Americans are alleged to have done.

As for the Italian media bashing, it just shows how little people know about Italian media. If someone comes up and proves that WP has been or is employed by the Italian Army against civilians or in a manner remotely similar to that of the US Armed Forces, I am 100% sure the Italian media would instantly jump on the Italian government. Here in Italy people are strongly against the Italian presence in Iraq (and Berlusconi) so it would even be a very popular media campaign.

That reportage was broadcast at 7 in the morning and very few people know about it even because it was completely ignored by the other Italian TV channels so it seems it had a greater effect abroad.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The deliberate use of just about any weapon against civilians is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. Incidental civilian casualties are a differerent matter. If the US deliberately targeted civilians, or was perhaps indifferent to their danger, they would be in violation of the GC regardless of whether they used white phosphorus or pointy sticks. If US forces took reasonable precautions but some civilians were killed anyway this would not be a violation even if WP were used. People should just forget about Protocol III. It's irrelevant. You guys are getting all caught up in the "chemical weapons!" hysteria.

[Romulus]

Sergei, your interpretation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) seems to be the right one.

The Italian TV channel RAI News 24 has interviewed Peter Kaiser, the spokesman of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) which is the international organisation that was established in 1997 by the countries that have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to make sure that the Convention works effectively and achieves its purpose. OPCW website

Here you can find the interview (in English).

Here is a rough transcription of what Mr. Kaiser said:

WP is not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of WP. WP is normally used to produce smoke to camouflage movement...and that is considered a legitimate use.

If on the other hand the toxic and caustic properties of WP are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited.

...any chemical that is used against humans or against animals that cause harm or death through its toxic properties are considered chemical weapons. It doesn't matter what substance we're talking about, as long as the purpose is to cause harm through its toxic properties, that is prohibited behaviour.

Hope my transcription is correct, my English listening skills are undoubtedly worse than John's Italian reading skills.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sergei:

[snips]

Käkelä 2000, page 155:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The pamphlet given to troops tells, that the Molotov was meant to be one of the instruments of infantry, which one man could instantly blind a tank and that way temporarily reduce or paralyze its ability to fight, making it easier to destroy it with more Molotovs, handgrenades, bundled explosives and mines.

...before the war started, the line of thinking clearly has been that the Molotovs would be used to create a blinding smoke to "shut the sighting holes" of the turret, after which men would attack the tank with explosives.

Not for once do the pioneer-technical instructions mention, how breaking a lit Molotov on the deck grill of a hot engine compartment would set the Soviet tank ablaze.

Maybe you would like to present more of your idiot misconceptions, John?

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I suppose Mr. Picky must confess to having been out-picked, and confess that he sloppily used "Molotov Cocktail" in the sense it is defined in the SOED to mean merely "incendiary hand-grenade", or a synonym for petrol-bomb, rather than in the specific sense of the Finnish Winter War mixture with tar added for obscurant purposes.

Still, no matter, for none of this does anything to alleviate your central error in claiming that there exists an international treaty that bans WP.

Once again, WP in itself is neither incendiary weapon nor obscurant, but it can be used for both, just like a Molotov.

</font>

Yes, thank you, I have understood that point, and there is no need for you to repeat it. Repetition would be otiose. There is no need to say it again. You convince me of nothing but your bone-headedness by dull repetition. It isn't necessary for you to revisit the point -- especially as it was never the one under discussion.

Now, at the risk of repeating myself, may I direct your attention once more to the fact that the text of the protocol specifically excludes from the category of "incendiary weapons" those designed as smokes, &c. I, the writers of the protocol and the little baby Jesus are all fully cognizant of the undoubted fact that weapons can have multiple functions, so, stop me if you've heard this, you do not need to repeat yourself.

You might more profitably answer some of the questions that have been put to you -- if WP is a banned weapon, where is this recorded by some credible authority on LOAC? And if the framers of Protocol III did not have WP (and, yes, RP) in mind when framing their text, what do you think they could possibly have intended to mean?

Originally posted by Sergei:

However, since you're too obsessed with your haughtiness to be influenced by facts and reason (possibly because of some political agenda, witnessed by your repeated mentioning of Italians), I'm going to leave it here.

Sergei, your diseased opinion does not qualify as "fact", nor your inability to read plain text as "reason". Your fatuous imputation of "some political agenda" shows what crass errors you can commit by your vile habit of assuming you know what I'm thinking before I've told you. And to accuse me of "haughtiness" when you won't deign to answer any of the questions put to you really does take a brass neck.

The fact that no international convention bans WP remains a fact, regardless of your inability to deal with it.

John.

[SSgt Viljuri]

How long can you go on, both honourable Mr. Salt and Sergei.

The point has been quite clear now, and your continued messaging habits haven't offered any more factual arguments, I think.

I will not offer any opinions about your vexed question, since it should be clear to any objective observer already.

Have a nice day...

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Romulus:

Sergei, your interpretation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) seems to be the right one.

Unlikely, since that's not the convention he was referring to.

Originally posted by Romulus:

The Italian TV channel RAI News 24 has interviewed Peter Kaiser, the spokesman of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) which is the international organisation that was established in 1997 by the countries that have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to make sure that the Convention works effectively and achieves its purpose. OPCW website

Here you can find the interview (in English).

Here is a rough transcription of what Mr. Kaiser said:

WP is not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of WP. WP is normally used to produce smoke to camouflage movement...and that is considered a legitimate use.

If on the other hand the toxic and caustic properties of WP are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited.

...any chemical that is used against humans or against animals that cause harm or death through its toxic properties are considered chemical weapons. It doesn't matter what substance we're talking about, as long as the purpose is to cause harm through its toxic properties, that is prohibited behaviour.

Hope my transcription is correct, my English listening skills are undoubtedly worse than John's Italian reading skills.

Given the extreme basicness of my Italian, I beg leave to doubt the last point.

However, I would be fascinated to know on what grounds Mr. Kaiser adds "caustic" effects to the toxic ones specifically mentioned in the CWC. I am not familiar with the CWC, so could anyone tell me which article classifies as chemical weapons those that have other than toxic effects, or specifically classifies WP as a "chemical weapon"? Neither WP nor RP appears in any of schedules 1, 2 and 3 in the "Annex on chemicals".

All the best,

John.

[ November 11, 2005, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[Romulus]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

However, I would be fascinated to know on what grounds Mr. Kaiser adds "caustic" effects to the toxic ones specifically mentioned in the CWC. I am not familiar with the CWC, so could anyone tell me which article classifies as chemical weapons those that have other than toxic effects, or specifically classifies WP as a "chemical weapon"?

John, you are right, Sergei was referring to the Geneva Convention of 10th October 1980 on firebombs (which included the famous Protocol III not signed by the USA). The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) mentioned by the RAI journalists is the convention promoted by the OPCW (and the United Nations) and signed even by the USA in 1997. If Mr. Kaiser is right in his interpretation then it seems the Americans have illegaly used WP in Falluja.

[Battlefront.com]

Simple fact... WP has been a standard in all militaries for the better part of a century. Anybody framing a treaty to exclude certain types of weapons would certainly know about WP. They would be fools if they didn't specifically mention it as banned. The more interpretation a treaty requires, the less likely it will have any effect. This is why treaties usually take YEARS to hammer out. The devil is in the details.

So... if WP is a known and common weapon, and a treaty doesn't mention it specifically, then I would take it that the drafters of the treaty did not intend on it being banned. And until the governing body of that treaty comes right out and, in plain language, states that WP is a "chemical weapon" under the treaty... then this is all just a bunch of biased bunk attempting to prop up a predisposed political agenda of one sort or another.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Romulus:

If Mr. Kaiser is right in his interpretation then it seems the Americans have illegaly used WP in Falluja.

With all due respect to Mr. Kaiser, I am sceptical. His position is that the intent of the user determines if the weapon is banned. User intent is not listed anywhere in the treaty that I can see. Under Kaiser's definition JDS's oily rags would indeed be chemical weapons if he ever threw them at Sergei.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Simple fact... (snipped)

..then this is all just a bunch of biased bunk attempting to prop up a predisposed political agenda of one sort or another.

Steve

Thanks Steve . You said what I would think some members of this forum should already know. I believe a couple of them actually do know these facts but cannot, once again, resist the chance to show their exorbitant amount of bias.

I found myself with no desire of attempting to explain something to them they should already know. Or that they insist on pretending they do not know to try and advance their political point of view (s).

[ November 11, 2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[flamingknives]

If one is to compare the text of the Certain Conventional Weapons convention and the Hague conventions, there is a clear and marked difference between design and use