Religions > Atheism > Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq...
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Katt" |
| Date: |
08 Nov 2005 01:19:34 AM |
| Object: |
Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
.
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
09 Nov 2005 02:01:07 PM |
|
|
"Katt" <kahgfghttt@t.com> wrote in message
news:G2Tbf.7229$Cq4.1340@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
More:
http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2005/11/bbc-and-fallujah-war-crimes-lies-and.htm
BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà
By Gabriele Zamparini
This morning, Wednesday, November 9, 2005 on the BBC News website, under the
title US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq I could still read:
Italian state TV, Rai, has broadcast a documentary accusing the US
military of using white phosphorus bombs against civilians in the Iraqi city
of Falluja.
Rai says this amounts to the illegal use of chemical arms, though the
bombs are considered incendiary devices.
Eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say the weapon was used in built-up areas
in the insurgent-held city.
The US military denies this, but admits using white phosphorus bombs in
Iraq to illuminate battlefields.
Yesterday I wrote on why the BBC NEWS is wrong when (in its article: "though
the bombs are considered incendiary devices" and with an email to me: "White
Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon") it denies that the white phosphorus
is a chemical weapon.
According to international law, any chemical used to harm or kill people or
animals is considered a chemical weapon. In the words of Peter Kaiser
(Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons):
"Any chemical that is used against humans or against animals that causes
harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical, ARE considered
chemical weapons and as long as the purpose is to cause harm - that is
prohibited behaviour." (You can listen to his words directly by following
this link and click the "Play" under the photo on the right at the bottom of
the page)
The BBC NEWS article goes on
"The US military denies this, but admits using white phosphorus bombs in
Iraq to illuminate battlefields."
The US Government had already denied the claims in the past. In Did the U.S.
Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah? Media allegations claim the U.S. used
outlawed weapons during combat in Iraq the US Department of State writes:
"Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used
"outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not
outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for
illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy
positions at night, not at enemy fighters.
There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S.
forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that
U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else
in Iraq." (Created: 09 Dec 2004 Updated: 27 Jan 2005)
Obviously nobody would expect the truth about war crimes and mass murders
coming from those accused of committing such crimes against humanity. Nobody
but the BBC and most of the media. Obviously everybody would expect
independent and honest information to be sceptical towards military and
governmental sources and to investigate, investigate, investigate. Everybody
but the BBC and most of the media.
They do not believe independent journalism. They do not trust independent
sources. They do not see their job as discovering the truth, investigate,
questioning the official version. They have sold their souls for a brilliant
career and - as Noam Chomsky has recently said - "to make sure they are
respectable enough to be invited to the right dinner parties."
OK, here it's the challenge! If the BBC (and most of the media) trust only
military sources, then a military source they'll have. From US Army's "Field
Artillery Magazine":
9. Munitions. The munitions we brought to this fight were 155-mm
highexplosive (HE) M107 (short-range) and M795 (long-range) rounds,
illumination and white phosphorous (WP, M110 and M825), with
point-detonating (PD), delay, time and variable-time (VT) fuzes. (.) White
Phosphorous. 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. (.) We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have
been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions. (.)
SOURCE:
THE FIGHT FOR FALLUJAH - TF 2-2 IN FSE AAR: Indirect Fires in the Battle
of Fallujah By Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour
and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight"
More about the SOURCE:
Captain James T. (Tom) Cobb has been assigned to 1st Battalion, 6th Field
Artillery (1-6 FA), 1st Infantry Division, and served as the Fire Support
Officer (FSO) for Task Force 2d Battalion, 2d Infantry, (TF 2-2 IN) in
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) II, including during the Battle of Fallujah.
He also deployed with Kosovo Force (KFOR) 4B.
First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour, assigned to 1-6 FA, has been the
Targeting Officer for TF 2-2 IN in OIF II, including during the Battle of
Fallujah. Also in OIF II, he was a Platoon Leader for 2/C/1-6 FA and,
previously, a Fire Direction Officer in the same battery.
Sergeant First Class William H. Hight, also assigned to 1-6 FA, has been
TF 2-2 IN's Fire Support NCO since September 2003, deploying in OIF II and
fighting in the Battle of Fallujah. He also deployed to Bosnia as part of
the Implementation Force (IFOR) and to Kosovo as part of KFOR 4B.
Here it's what Darrin Mortenson of the North County Times wrote in the april
2004
Fighting from a distance
After pounding parts of the city for days, many Marines say the recent
combat escalated into more than they had planned for, but not more than they
could handle.
"It's a war," said Cpl. Nicholas Bogert, 22, of Morris, N.Y.
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.
"We had all this SASO (security and stabilization operations) training
back home," he said. "And then this turns into a real goddamned war."
Just as his team started to eat a breakfast of packaged rations Saturday,
Bogert got a fire mission over the radio.
"Stand by!" he yelled, sending Lance Cpls. Jonathan Alexander and Jonathan
Millikin scrambling to their feet.
Shake 'n' bake
Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were
instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets,
a lot was at stake.
Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and
called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."
Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala.,
quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.
"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing
a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the
tube.
"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.
The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again
and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives
they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have
been spotted all week.
They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it
as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of
personal insults and name-calling. (from VIOLENCE SUBSIDES FOR MARINES IN
FALLUJAH by DARRIN MORTENSON, North County Times, Saturday, April 10, 2004)
The silence and the lies of the mainstream media have resulted in war crimes
and crimes against humanity. The Iraq war has started with lies and with
lies it's been continuing since. We shall never forget the words used at the
Nazi criminals' trials:
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international
crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war
crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the
whole." - Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of
German Major War Criminals - Nuremberg, Germany 1946
Now, it's up to us.
Gabriele Zamparini
Thanks to Mark Kraft for sending me important information used for this
article.
-----
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 04:10:55 AM |
|
|
"Katt" <kahgfghttt@t.com> wrote in news:G2Tbf.7229$Cq4.1340@newsfe7-
gui.ntli.net:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
I've never been in combat, so I'm far from an expert. But I'd not expect
the use of *anything* to illuminate the battle field. Our tropps should
have the latest in night vision equipment, while the Iraqis would not.
Perhaps we could see better with some light, but so could the enemy.
Is night vision equipment not as common as I suppose?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Faith, in the religious sense, means to place one's trust in an idea
irrespective of how little evidence there is to support it. It is to
suppress that part of the brain which filters fact from fiction, and to
chose fiction because it feels nicer.
-- Alan J. Douglas 1942-2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas*in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 09:02:52 PM |
|
|
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Katt" <kahgfghttt@t.com> wrote in news:G2Tbf.7229$Cq4.1340@newsfe7-
gui.ntli.net:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
I've never been in combat, so I'm far from an expert. But I'd not expect
the use of *anything* to illuminate the battle field.
"Oh, say can you see, by the phosporus' white glare--"
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 09:37:18 PM |
|
|
"Dan Clore" wrote
: Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
: > "Katt" wrote
: > gui.ntli.net:
: > I've never been in combat, so I'm far from an expert. But I'd not
expect
: > the use of *anything* to illuminate the battle field.
:
: "Oh, say can you see, by the phosporus' white glare--"
I have been in combat and I can tell you that white phosphorus does not
"glare". It makes a big puff of white smoke. However, flares are frequently
used to illuminate the battlefield when it is advantageous. I used an M79 in
Vietnam. If you go to
http://www.173rdairborne.com/weapons.htm#M-79,%2040mm%20Grenade%20Launcher
you will see that one of the of it uses was to fire flares. Better yet, read
the account at http://lzsally.com/stories/webb.html. It is really ridiculous
when "non-experts" think they know what they are talking about. Idiots!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 03:01:57 AM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
Oooh, look: here' another moron who hasn't got a clue.
white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is it a poison gas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 05:38:09 PM |
|
|
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131418917.760385.227630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
Oooh, look: here' another moron who hasn't got a clue.
white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is it a poison gas.
No, it's just nice white fluffy stuff...no-more harmful than cotton wool !
Fucking moron.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 05:59:05 PM |
|
|
"Jez" wrote
: "zztop8970" wrote
: > Katt wrote:
: >> Katt.
: >
: > Oooh, look: here' another moron who hasn't got a clue.
: > white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is it a poison gas.
:
: No, it's just nice white fluffy stuff...no-more harmful than cotton wool !
:
: Fucking moron.
How can white phosphorus affect my health?
Little information is available about the health effects that may be caused
by white phosphorus. Most of what is known about the effects of breathing
white phosphorus is from studies of workers. Most of what is known about the
effects of eating white phosphorus is from reports of people eating rat
poison or fireworks that contained it.
Breathing white phosphorus for short periods may cause coughing and
irritation of the throat and lungs. Breathing white phosphorus for long
periods may cause a condition known as "phossy jaw" which involves poor
wound healing of the mouth and breakdown of the jaw bone.
Eating or drinking small amounts of white phosphorus may cause liver, heart,
or kidney damage, vomiting, stomach cramps, drowsiness, or death. We do not
know what the effects are from eating or drinking very small amounts of
white phosphorus-containing substances over long periods of time.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 06:23:51 PM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131418917.760385.227630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
Oooh, look: here' another moron who hasn't got a clue.
white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is it a poison gas.
No, it's just nice white fluffy stuff...no-more harmful than cotton wool !
Fucking moron.
Ah Jez, welcome back. We've missed your inane posts, your non-existant
logic, and your general ignorance about just about anything.
WP is nasty stuff. It causes burns and it is hard to clear out of
wounds. However, iti s not a chemical weapon nor is it a poison gas as
the OP claimed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
09 Nov 2005 09:00:24 PM |
|
|
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131474231.341245.42820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131418917.760385.227630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
Oooh, look: here' another moron who hasn't got a clue.
white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is it a poison gas.
No, it's just nice white fluffy stuff...no-more harmful than cotton wool
!
Fucking moron.
Ah Jez, welcome back. We've missed your inane posts, your non-existant
logic, and your general ignorance about just about anything.
WP is nasty stuff. It causes burns and it is hard to clear out of
wounds. However, iti s not a chemical weapon nor is it a poison gas as
the OP claimed.
It's a chemical weapon.
A weapon made with phosphorus. A chemical.
And it's a war-crime to use it on civilians.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
09 Nov 2005 10:51:19 PM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131474231.341245.42820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131418917.760385.227630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
Oooh, look: here' another moron who hasn't got a clue.
white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is it a poison gas.
No, it's just nice white fluffy stuff...no-more harmful than cotton wool
!
Fucking moron.
Ah Jez, welcome back. We've missed your inane posts, your non-existant
logic, and your general ignorance about just about anything.
WP is nasty stuff. It causes burns and it is hard to clear out of
wounds. However, iti s not a chemical weapon nor is it a poison gas as
the OP claimed.
It's a chemical weapon.
No, it's not.
A weapon made with phosphorus. A chemical.
A lead bullet is made with lead. A chemical. Is it your contention that
bullets are chemical weapons?
And it's a war-crime to use it on civilians.
It's a war crime to use *ANY* weapon on civilians. But you fucking
morons aren't contnet with just accusing teh US of killing civilians,
you have to go over the top and lie that WP is a chemical weapon and a
poison gas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
10 Nov 2005 02:44:41 PM |
|
|
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131576679.035084.3840@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131474231.341245.42820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131418917.760385.227630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
Oooh, look: here' another moron who hasn't got a clue.
white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is it a poison gas.
No, it's just nice white fluffy stuff...no-more harmful than cotton
wool
!
Fucking moron.
Ah Jez, welcome back. We've missed your inane posts, your non-existant
logic, and your general ignorance about just about anything.
WP is nasty stuff. It causes burns and it is hard to clear out of
wounds. However, iti s not a chemical weapon nor is it a poison gas as
the OP claimed.
It's a chemical weapon.
No, it's not.
A weapon made with phosphorus. A chemical.
A lead bullet is made with lead. A chemical. Is it your contention that
bullets are chemical weapons?
And it's a war-crime to use it on civilians.
It's a war crime to use *ANY* weapon on civilians. But you fucking
morons aren't contnet with just accusing teh US of killing civilians,
you have to go over the top and lie that WP is a chemical weapon and a
poison gas.
Disgusting to see you still support war criminals.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
10 Nov 2005 03:08:31 PM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131576679.035084.3840@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131474231.341245.42820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131418917.760385.227630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
Oooh, look: here' another moron who hasn't got a clue.
white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is it a poison gas.
No, it's just nice white fluffy stuff...no-more harmful than cotton
wool
!
Fucking moron.
Ah Jez, welcome back. We've missed your inane posts, your non-existant
logic, and your general ignorance about just about anything.
WP is nasty stuff. It causes burns and it is hard to clear out of
wounds. However, iti s not a chemical weapon nor is it a poison gas as
the OP claimed.
It's a chemical weapon.
No, it's not.
A weapon made with phosphorus. A chemical.
A lead bullet is made with lead. A chemical. Is it your contention that
bullets are chemical weapons?
And it's a war-crime to use it on civilians.
It's a war crime to use *ANY* weapon on civilians. But you fucking
morons aren't contnet with just accusing teh US of killing civilians,
you have to go over the top and lie that WP is a chemical weapon and a
poison gas.
Disgusting to see you still support war criminals.
Which war criminals am I supporting, twit?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
10 Nov 2005 07:36:21 PM |
|
|
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131635311.755385.7190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131576679.035084.3840@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131474231.341245.42820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131418917.760385.227630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
Oooh, look: here' another moron who hasn't got a clue.
white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is it a poison
gas.
No, it's just nice white fluffy stuff...no-more harmful than cotton
wool
!
Fucking moron.
Ah Jez, welcome back. We've missed your inane posts, your
non-existant
logic, and your general ignorance about just about anything.
WP is nasty stuff. It causes burns and it is hard to clear out of
wounds. However, iti s not a chemical weapon nor is it a poison gas
as
the OP claimed.
It's a chemical weapon.
No, it's not.
A weapon made with phosphorus. A chemical.
A lead bullet is made with lead. A chemical. Is it your contention that
bullets are chemical weapons?
And it's a war-crime to use it on civilians.
It's a war crime to use *ANY* weapon on civilians. But you fucking
morons aren't contnet with just accusing teh US of killing civilians,
you have to go over the top and lie that WP is a chemical weapon and a
poison gas.
Disgusting to see you still support war criminals.
Which war criminals am I supporting, twit?
The ones that illegally invaded Iraq.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
10 Nov 2005 11:14:05 PM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131635311.755385.7190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131576679.035084.3840@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131474231.341245.42820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131418917.760385.227630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
Oooh, look: here' another moron who hasn't got a clue.
white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is it a poison
gas.
No, it's just nice white fluffy stuff...no-more harmful than cotton
wool
!
Fucking moron.
Ah Jez, welcome back. We've missed your inane posts, your
non-existant
logic, and your general ignorance about just about anything.
WP is nasty stuff. It causes burns and it is hard to clear out of
wounds. However, iti s not a chemical weapon nor is it a poison gas
as
the OP claimed.
It's a chemical weapon.
No, it's not.
A weapon made with phosphorus. A chemical.
A lead bullet is made with lead. A chemical. Is it your contention that
bullets are chemical weapons?
And it's a war-crime to use it on civilians.
It's a war crime to use *ANY* weapon on civilians. But you fucking
morons aren't contnet with just accusing teh US of killing civilians,
you have to go over the top and lie that WP is a chemical weapon and a
poison gas.
Disgusting to see you still support war criminals.
Which war criminals am I supporting, twit?
The ones that illegally invaded Iraq.
And where have I voiced my support for them?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 03:20:44 AM |
|
|
On 7 Nov 2005 19:01:57 -0800, "zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote:
Katt wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Katt.
Oooh, look: here' another moron who hasn't got a clue.
white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, nor is it a poison gas.
White phosphorus rapidly becomes Phosphorus Pentoxide smoke upon
exposure to the atmoshphere.
Safety data for P4 O10:
http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/PH/phosphorus_pentoxide.html
I suggest as a test of your claim that it is benign, that you
volunteer to be exposed to a phosphorus grenade or sopme other
phosphorus weapon, and report back to the group, (if you can.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 03:57:16 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote
White phosphorus rapidly becomes Phosphorus Pentoxide
smoke upon exposure to the atmoshphere.
Though you might have a technical point, it is quite irrelevant.
The fact remains that white phosphorus is used in incendiary
weapons, and has been for many long decades. It is *Not* a
"chemical weapon" in any sense of a banned/illegal weapon,
such as nerve agents, regardless of any by-products/residue
it might produce.
Pick your battles more carefully.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 03:53:19 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" wrote
: "Michael Gray" wrote
: The fact remains that white phosphorus is used in incendiary
: weapons, and has been for many long decades.
White phosphorus is used in marking rounds. They used to go off over our
heads all the time when we needed to be sure of our position.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 04:20:37 AM |
|
|
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote
"JTEM" wrote
: "Michael Gray" wrote
: The fact remains that white phosphorus is used in incendiary
: weapons, and has been for many long decades.
White phosphorus is used in marking rounds. They used to go
off over our heads all the time when we needed to be sure
of our position.
Calling them a "Chemical Weapon" is a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent them as a banned weapon, such as VX or mustard
gas.
Seriously. Nobody argued against this war more than me, and
I had the added weight from not being a mindless pacificst
against *Any* use of military force. But you've got to pick your
battle here. Our military ARE NOT the bad guys. Bush is.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns
out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind
to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkM" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
12 Nov 2005 07:02:53 AM |
|
|
I had the added weight from not being a mindless pacificst
against *Any* use of military force.
What is so mindless about being a pacifist?
- - - -
An Archive of Nobel-Prize-Winning Pacifists and Peace Activists
http://www.peaceuniversalist.com/nobel/prize.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 05:04:06 AM |
|
|
TV's JTEM wrote:
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote
"JTEM" wrote
: "Michael Gray" wrote
: The fact remains that white phosphorus is used in incendiary
: weapons, and has been for many long decades.
White phosphorus is used in marking rounds. They used to go
off over our heads all the time when we needed to be sure
of our position.
Calling them a "Chemical Weapon" is a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent them as a banned weapon, such as VX or mustard
gas.
They are still *technically* a chemical weapon. Then again, if used to
flood a residential area on purpose, water could be considered a chemical
weapon. It's really a matter of semantics.
Seriously. Nobody argued against this war more than me, and
I had the added weight from not being a mindless pacificst
against *Any* use of military force. But you've got to pick your
battle here. Our military ARE NOT the bad guys. Bush is.
If the military were using banned weapons, it would still be Bush's fault,
not the grunts on the field.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 07:44:32 PM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
Calling them a "Chemical Weapon" is a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent them as a banned weapon, such as VX or mustard
gas.
They are still *technically* a chemical weapon.
No. Not in *Any* sense of the term "Chemical Weapon" as
employed by the U.N. or international treaty.
*Only* in the sense that *Everything* aside from cold-steal
is a "Chemical Weapon" can you claim it is a chemical
weapon. ALL explosives are chemicals. ALL bullets are
propelled with chemicals.
Then again, if used to flood a residential area on purpose,
water could be considered a chemical weapon. It's really
a matter of semantics.
No. It's a matter of international law/treaty.
That's what defines a "Chemical Weapon."
If the military were using banned weapons, it would still
be Bush's fault, not the grunts on the field.
Agreed. But they are not using banned weapons.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
08 Nov 2005 05:19:05 AM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
TV's JTEM wrote:
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote
"JTEM" wrote
: "Michael Gray" wrote
: The fact remains that white phosphorus is used in incendiary
: weapons, and has been for many long decades.
White phosphorus is used in marking rounds. They used to go
off over our heads all the time when we needed to be sure
of our position.
Calling them a "Chemical Weapon" is a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent them as a banned weapon, such as VX or mustard
gas.
They are still *technically* a chemical weapon.
No, they are not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them
Then again, if used to
flood a residential area on purpose, water could be considered a chemical
weapon. It's really a matter of semantics.
No, it's not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them.
s an aside, you have no clue about WP. It is virtually impossible to
'flood a residential area' with WP, as it has the undisirable property
(from a military perspective) of quickly rasing *up* and away from the
area it was deployed in. Get yourself educated at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
Seriously. Nobody argued against this war more than me, and
I had the added weight from not being a mindless pacificst
against *Any* use of military force. But you've got to pick your
battle here. Our military ARE NOT the bad guys. Bush is.
If the military were using banned weapons, it would still be Bush's fault,
not the grunts on the field.
Look, moron: white phosphorus is NOT a banned weapon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
10 Nov 2005 07:35:20 PM |
|
|
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131427145.237306.34860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
towelie wrote:
TV's JTEM wrote:
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote
"JTEM" wrote
: "Michael Gray" wrote
: The fact remains that white phosphorus is used in incendiary
: weapons, and has been for many long decades.
White phosphorus is used in marking rounds. They used to go
off over our heads all the time when we needed to be sure
of our position.
Calling them a "Chemical Weapon" is a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent them as a banned weapon, such as VX or mustard
gas.
They are still *technically* a chemical weapon.
No, they are not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them
Then again, if used to
flood a residential area on purpose, water could be considered a chemical
weapon. It's really a matter of semantics.
No, it's not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them.
s an aside, you have no clue about WP. It is virtually impossible to
'flood a residential area' with WP, as it has the undisirable property
(from a military perspective) of quickly rasing *up* and away from the
area it was deployed in. Get yourself educated at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
Seriously. Nobody argued against this war more than me, and
I had the added weight from not being a mindless pacificst
against *Any* use of military force. But you've got to pick your
battle here. Our military ARE NOT the bad guys. Bush is.
If the military were using banned weapons, it would still be Bush's
fault,
not the grunts on the field.
Look, moron: white phosphorus is NOT a banned weapon.
It's use on civilians is.
Your continuing support for lying war-criminals noted.
Where's the WMD's, ***** ?
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
11 Nov 2005 12:04:22 AM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131427145.237306.34860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
towelie wrote:
TV's JTEM wrote:
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote
"JTEM" wrote
: "Michael Gray" wrote
: The fact remains that white phosphorus is used in incendiary
: weapons, and has been for many long decades.
White phosphorus is used in marking rounds. They used to go
off over our heads all the time when we needed to be sure
of our position.
Calling them a "Chemical Weapon" is a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent them as a banned weapon, such as VX or mustard
gas.
They are still *technically* a chemical weapon.
No, they are not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them
Then again, if used to
flood a residential area on purpose, water could be considered a chemical
weapon. It's really a matter of semantics.
No, it's not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them.
s an aside, you have no clue about WP. It is virtually impossible to
'flood a residential area' with WP, as it has the undisirable property
(from a military perspective) of quickly rasing *up* and away from the
area it was deployed in. Get yourself educated at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
Seriously. Nobody argued against this war more than me, and
I had the added weight from not being a mindless pacificst
against *Any* use of military force. But you've got to pick your
battle here. Our military ARE NOT the bad guys. Bush is.
If the military were using banned weapons, it would still be Bush's
fault,
not the grunts on the field.
Look, moron: white phosphorus is NOT a banned weapon.
It's use on civilians is.
If you use it on civilians, you are commiting a war crime, but the
material is still not banned. Similarly , if you use a gun on civilians
you are committing a war crime, but that does not make gus a banned
weapon, nor does it make them a chemical weapon, or a WMD.
Your continuing support for lying war-criminals noted.
Where is it noted, moron? pointing out that WP is not a poison gas is
an educational service for twits like you, so that you may be able to
learn something. It does not involve support for those using iut.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bulba!" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
11 Nov 2005 01:01:12 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:35:20 -0000, "Jez"
<iced_spear@nodamnspamdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
If the military were using banned weapons, it would still be Bush's
fault,
not the grunts on the field.
Look, moron: white phosphorus is NOT a banned weapon.
It's use on civilians is.
Are you saying that the use of ANY weapon on _civilians_ is?
--
Only those who have a lot of guns can afford to be pacifists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
11 Nov 2005 02:00:16 PM |
|
|
"Bulba!" <bulba@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:2ar7n111refsuf2qc332k2r95niovdmf1g@4ax.com...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:35:20 -0000, "Jez"
<iced_spear@nodamnspamdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
If the military were using banned weapons, it would still be Bush's
fault,
not the grunts on the field.
Look, moron: white phosphorus is NOT a banned weapon.
It's use on civilians is.
Are you saying that the use of ANY weapon on _civilians_ is?
In war, yes, civilians are not to be attacked.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
11 Nov 2005 05:59:58 AM |
|
|
TV's zztop8970 wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's JTEM wrote:
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote
"JTEM" wrote
: "Michael Gray" wrote
: The fact remains that white phosphorus is used in incendiary
: weapons, and has been for many long decades.
White phosphorus is used in marking rounds. They used to go
off over our heads all the time when we needed to be sure
of our position.
Calling them a "Chemical Weapon" is a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent them as a banned weapon, such as VX or mustard
gas.
They are still *technically* a chemical weapon.
No, they are not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them
Then again, if used to
flood a residential area on purpose, water could be considered a
chemical weapon. It's really a matter of semantics.
No, it's not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them.
s an aside, you have no clue about WP. It is virtually impossible to
'flood a residential area' with WP, as it has the undisirable property
(from a military perspective) of quickly rasing *up* and away from the
area it was deployed in. Get yourself educated at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
If you didn't have government agencies tell you how to think and feel, what
would you think about? Would you feel anything at all?
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
11 Nov 2005 06:21:56 AM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
TV's zztop8970 wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's JTEM wrote:
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote
"JTEM" wrote
: "Michael Gray" wrote
: The fact remains that white phosphorus is used in incendiary
: weapons, and has been for many long decades.
White phosphorus is used in marking rounds. They used to go
off over our heads all the time when we needed to be sure
of our position.
Calling them a "Chemical Weapon" is a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent them as a banned weapon, such as VX or mustard
gas.
They are still *technically* a chemical weapon.
No, they are not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them
Then again, if used to
flood a residential area on purpose, water could be considered a
chemical weapon. It's really a matter of semantics.
No, it's not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them.
s an aside, you have no clue about WP. It is virtually impossible to
'flood a residential area' with WP, as it has the undisirable property
(from a military perspective) of quickly rasing *up* and away from the
area it was deployed in. Get yourself educated at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
If you didn't have government agencies tell you how to think and feel, what
would you think about? Would you feel anything at all?
Look, twit: you made an ignorant mistake. I've corrected you. You can
crawl back where you came from and learn your lesson, or keep posting
and be further humiliated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
11 Nov 2005 10:27:33 AM |
|
|
TV's zztop8970 wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's zztop8970 wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's JTEM wrote:
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote
"JTEM" wrote
: "Michael Gray" wrote
: The fact remains that white phosphorus is used in incendiary
: weapons, and has been for many long decades.
White phosphorus is used in marking rounds. They used to go
off over our heads all the time when we needed to be sure
of our position.
Calling them a "Chemical Weapon" is a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent them as a banned weapon, such as VX or mustard
gas.
They are still *technically* a chemical weapon.
No, they are not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them
Then again, if used to
flood a residential area on purpose, water could be considered a
chemical weapon. It's really a matter of semantics.
No, it's not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them.
s an aside, you have no clue about WP. It is virtually impossible to
'flood a residential area' with WP, as it has the undisirable property
(from a military perspective) of quickly rasing *up* and away from the
area it was deployed in. Get yourself educated at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
If you didn't have government agencies tell you how to think and feel,
what would you think about? Would you feel anything at all?
Look, twit: you made an ignorant mistake. I've corrected you. You can
crawl back where you came from and learn your lesson, or keep posting
and be further humiliated.
No, all you've done is call me names, the hallmark of a consession from the
far-right.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Oooh, look: the US has used *chemical weapons* and *poison gas* in Iraq... |
11 Nov 2005 07:15:13 PM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
TV's zztop8970 wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's zztop8970 wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's JTEM wrote:
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote
"JTEM" wrote
: "Michael Gray" wrote
: The fact remains that white phosphorus is used in incendiary
: weapons, and has been for many long decades.
White phosphorus is used in marking rounds. They used to go
off over our heads all the time when we needed to be sure
of our position.
Calling them a "Chemical Weapon" is a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent them as a banned weapon, such as VX or mustard
gas.
They are still *technically* a chemical weapon.
No, they are not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them
Then again, if used to
flood a residential area on purpose, water could be considered a
chemical weapon. It's really a matter of semantics.
No, it's not. Chemical weapons are those defined by the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). White Phosphorus is not one of them.
s an aside, you have no clue about WP. It is virtually impossible to
'flood a residential area' with WP, as it has the undisirable property
(from a military perspective) of quickly rasing *up* and away from the
area it was deployed in. Get yourself educated at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus
If you didn't have government agencies tell you how to think and feel,
what would you think about? Would you feel anything at all?
Look, twit: you made an ignorant mistake. I've corrected you. You can
crawl back where you came from and learn your lesson, or keep posting
and be further humiliated.
No, all you've done is call me names,
No, that's false, you haven't been paying attention.
1. I've provided you with the actual definiton of Chemical Weapons, as
defined by the CWC, which exclude WP.
2. I've explained to you that the characteristics of WP make it
impossible to use it in the way you allege, and pointed you to
reputable source confirming this.
3. I've illustrated to you, through the use of a reductio ad absurdum
argument, that your definition of a chemical weapon is wrong.
You, in response, chose to attack my alleged political lenaings or my
abrasive style. That's known as an ad hominem argument.
Stick around, you may learn something.
the hallmark of a consession from the
far-right.
I again point to the fact that you know nothing about my politics. And
if you think name-calling is the exclusive domain of the right, you
haven't been around usenet (or any forum of political debate) for very
long.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
