| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
16 Nov 2005 12:14:07 PM |
| Object: |
White phosphorus used in Iraq |
And the problem is ....?
http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2005-11-16_1976236.html
White phosphorus used in Iraq
ANSA) - Washington, November 16 - The Pentagon has admitted using white
phosphorus in Iraq but denies claims made by an Italian documentary that the
spontaneously flammable chemical was used against civilians .
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said on Tuesday that white
phosphorus was used as an incendiary weapon against insurgent strongholds
during the US military's siege of the Iraqi city of Falluja last year .
"It was not used against civilians," he said .
Washington had earlier denied the use of white phosphorus at all in Falluja,
a city just to the west of Baghdad which suffered widespread destruction
during the November 2004 offensive .
White phosphorus is a lethal chemical which is capable of burning and
melting human skin. The smoke it produces is capable of causing external and
internal chemical burns .
.
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 10:33:15 PM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2005 04:16:50 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in news:Z5Sef.1363
$N45.959@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
This is really a lame argument. Clearly, white phosphorpus *could* have
been classified as chemical weapons, and perhaps should have been. But in
the negotiations, they were not. So, by treaty, they are not chemical
weapons. That does not mean their use in any particular situation is legal
or moral. Using *any* weapons on civilians is a war crime anyway.
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended
for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the
types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death
or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals
specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of
the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in
connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in
subparagraph (b).
9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:
(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical
or other peaceful purposes;
(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related
to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against
chemical weapons;
(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical
weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of
chemicals as a method of warfare;
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
It's clear that WP was used for a military purpose connected with the
toxic properties of that chemical - it was used to cause chemical
burns.
The schedule of chemicals is for verification. It's not an exhaustive
list of all the chemical weapons extant.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 10:45:49 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
: >"Andrealphus" wrote
: >
: >This is really a lame argument. Clearly, white phosphorpus *could* have
: >been classified as chemical weapons, and perhaps should have been. But
in
: >the negotiations, they were not. So, by treaty, they are not chemical
: >weapons. That does not mean their use in any particular situation is
legal
: >or moral. Using *any* weapons on civilians is a war crime anyway.
:
: 1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
:
: (a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended
: for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the
: types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
:
: (b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death
: or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals
: specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of
: the employment of such munitions and devices;
:
: (c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in
: connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in
: subparagraph (b).
:
: 9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:
:
: (a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical
: or other peaceful purposes;
:
: (b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related
: to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against
: chemical weapons;
:
: (c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical
: weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of
: chemicals as a method of warfare;
:
: (d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
:
: It's clear that WP was used for a military purpose connected with the
: toxic properties of that chemical - it was used to cause chemical
: burns.
:
: The schedule of chemicals is for verification. It's not an exhaustive
: list of all the chemical weapons extant.
These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW
agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.
Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high
concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a
chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use.
Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed as
chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class.
Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as
biological weapons.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 10:35:11 PM |
|
|
In News 6s1on1pja2j1gt62v46kpnll5k2hga6id3@4ax.com,, Adam H. at
adam@mailinator.com, typed this:
On 17 Nov 2005 04:16:50 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org>
wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in
news:Z5Sef.1363 $N45.959@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
This is really a lame argument. Clearly, white phosphorpus *could*
have been classified as chemical weapons, and perhaps should have
been. But in the negotiations, they were not. So, by treaty, they
are not chemical weapons. That does not mean their use in any
particular situation is legal or moral. Using *any* weapons on
civilians is a war crime anyway.
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended
for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the
types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death
or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals
specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of
the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in
connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in
subparagraph (b).
9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:
(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical
or other peaceful purposes;
(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related
to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against
chemical weapons;
(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical
weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of
chemicals as a method of warfare;
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
It's clear that WP was used for a military purpose connected with the
toxic properties of that chemical - it was used to cause chemical
burns.
The schedule of chemicals is for verification. It's not an exhaustive
list of all the chemical weapons extant.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
'Republican', but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I'll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
You're wasting your time with these guys Adam. They have no clue, and
really don't seem to want one.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
17 Nov 2005 12:04:39 AM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News 6s1on1pja2j1gt62v46kpnll5k2hga6id3@4ax.com,, Adam H. at
adam@mailinator.com, typed this:
You're wasting your time with these guys Adam. They have no clue, and
really don't seem to want one.
Well, you could answer the question very simply - what is the temperature
of the stuff when it is deployed? You know, an actual number?
BTW, see <http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic918.htm> which states,
"Munitions-quality white phosphorus commonly is found in solid
form. When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is
oxidized rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is
produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a
yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. Phosphorus also
becomes luminous in the dark, and this property is conveyed to
"tracer bullets." This chemical reaction continues until
either all the material is consumed or the element is deprived
of oxygen."
Also,
"Few studies have investigated the degree of tissue
destruction associated with white phosphorus injuries. In the
experimental animal model, most tissue destruction appears to
be secondary to the heat generated by oxidation."
I.e., it is a very nasty "incendiary device" or whatever the euphemism
du jour is for weapons designed to burn people to death, with any
chemical reaction with the skin, etc. likely to be a secondary effect.
You don't have to call it a chemical weapon to say its use is
inhumane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
17 Nov 2005 07:19:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:04:39 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News 6s1on1pja2j1gt62v46kpnll5k2hga6id3@4ax.com,, Adam H. at
adam@mailinator.com, typed this:
You're wasting your time with these guys Adam. They have no clue, and
really don't seem to want one.
Well, you could answer the question very simply - what is the temperature
of the stuff when it is deployed? You know, an actual number?
BTW, see <http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic918.htm> which states,
"Munitions-quality white phosphorus commonly is found in solid
form. When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is
oxidized rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is
produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a
yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. Phosphorus also
becomes luminous in the dark, and this property is conveyed to
"tracer bullets." This chemical reaction continues until
either all the material is consumed or the element is deprived
of oxygen."
Also,
"Few studies have investigated the degree of tissue
destruction associated with white phosphorus injuries. In the
experimental animal model, most tissue destruction appears to
be secondary to the heat generated by oxidation."
I.e., it is a very nasty "incendiary device" or whatever the euphemism
du jour is for weapons designed to burn people to death, with any
chemical reaction with the skin, etc. likely to be a secondary effect.
You don't have to call it a chemical weapon to say its use is
inhumane.
But to call it a chemical weapon is not inaccurate if it's used to
cause chemical burns, either.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
17 Nov 2005 09:16:46 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: But to call it a chemical weapon is not inaccurate if it's used to
: cause chemical burns, either.
Oh, now you are saying that it was "used" for such a purpose. How do you
know that isn't just a side affect of the intentional purpose?
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
17 Nov 2005 11:48:20 AM |
|
|
In News I--dnUUMoMNpA-HeRVn-iA@comcast.com,, Bear at
bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net, typed this:
"Adam H." wrote
But to call it a chemical weapon is not inaccurate if it's used to
cause chemical burns, either.
Oh, now you are saying that it was "used" for such a purpose. How do
you know that isn't just a side affect of the intentional purpose?
Because many U.S. military witnesses and some big wigs in the pentagon have
admitted that it was used as a chemical weapon to cause chemical burns.
Listen to the news much?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
17 Nov 2005 12:26:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:48:20 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
In News I--dnUUMoMNpA-HeRVn-iA@comcast.com,, Bear at
bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net, typed this:
"Adam H." wrote
But to call it a chemical weapon is not inaccurate if it's used to
cause chemical burns, either.
Oh, now you are saying that it was "used" for such a purpose. How do
you know that isn't just a side affect of the intentional purpose?
Because many U.S. military witnesses and some big wigs in the pentagon have
admitted that it was used as a chemical weapon to cause chemical burns.
Listen to the news much?
I've realized that it's a waste of time presenting this to him. Even
after seeing the parts of the treaty that showed that WP was used as a
chemical weapon and so is considered one in that case, he's still
denying it because it's not on the right list.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
17 Nov 2005 09:33:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:16:46 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Adam H." wrote
: But to call it a chemical weapon is not inaccurate if it's used to
: cause chemical burns, either.
Oh, now you are saying that it was "used" for such a purpose. How do you
know that isn't just a side affect of the intentional purpose?
Are you being stupid on purpose or does it come naturally without
effort?
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended
for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the
types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
So, yes. The use MAKES A DIFFERENCE. If you would read the
authoritative source you would already have known that.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
17 Nov 2005 09:38:34 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: So, yes. The use MAKES A DIFFERENCE. If you would read the
: authoritative source you would already have known that.
Dumbass, your so-called source cannot say what the intentions of the US
military was. However:
These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW
agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.
Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high
concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a
chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use.
Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed as
chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class.
Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as
biological weapons. (http://www.opcw.org/)
Also, this topic is not within the scope of the purpose of this newsgroup.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
17 Nov 2005 09:42:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:38:34 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Adam H." wrote
: So, yes. The use MAKES A DIFFERENCE. If you would read the
: authoritative source you would already have known that.
Dumbass, your so-called source cannot say what the intentions of the US
military was. However:
Gee, do you suppose that those who USED the weapons might be able to
say that.
These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW
agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.
Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high
concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a
chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use.
Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed as
chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class.
Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as
biological weapons. (http://www.opcw.org/)
Also, this topic is not within the scope of the purpose of this newsgroup.
Gee, I think I'll go with the actual treaty. Your "off-topic" attempt
to dodge is lame, by the way.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
17 Nov 2005 09:45:00 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: "Bear" wrote:
: >These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
: >
: >Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be
CW
: >agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.
: >Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high
: >concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a
: >chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their
use.
: >Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed
as
: >chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class.
: >Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as
: >biological weapons. (http://www.opcw.org/)
: >
: >Also, this topic is not within the scope of the purpose of this
newsgroup.
:
: Gee, I think I'll go with the actual treaty.
What I quoted above is what the treaty says.
: Your "off-topic" attempt
: to dodge is lame, by the way.
Not a dodge, liar!
What is the purpose of alt.atheism?
Alt.atheism was created in 1990 as a place to discuss atheism and
atheist topics, including:
* Whether it is reasonable to pretend to be religious in order to
avoid upsetting your family
* Prayer in schools
* Discrimination against atheists
* Sunday trading laws
* The Satanic Child Abuse myth
* Whether you should be an overt atheist or 'stay in the closet'
* How religious societies prey (sic) on new college students
* How to get rid of unwanted proselytizers
* Whether religion is a danger to society and/or the individual
* Why people become atheists
Of course, inevitably alt.atheism tends to attract evangelical
Christians looking for someone to convert. Most readers of the
newsgroup don't want to be preached to, although a few seem to derive
perverse pleasure from tearing apart particularly ill-considered or
uninformed postings.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
17 Nov 2005 09:20:39 PM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> writes:
But to call it a chemical weapon is not inaccurate if it's used to
cause chemical burns, either.
While it is nasty stuff, its primary use (according to the web sites
I found) is to either ignite other explosives, to form smoke screens,
and for "tracer bullets" which let you see where the bullet is
going.
The site I quoted indicated that whatever "chemical burn" it caused is
secondary (i.e., negligible) to the damage done by heat. I'm not
sure if that makes any difference to someone injured by this stuff,
but it probably accounts for the classification.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 10:43:34 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" wrote
: You're wasting your time with these guys Adam. They have no clue, and
: really don't seem to want one.
You are the clueless ones.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 08:49:15 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" wrote
: List the criteria right here ---->
Look it up yourself.
: So, it's second hand information. Why don't you provide a link to where
: the CWC actually says it.
I did.
: It was a good question, you are being purposefully obtuse.
No it wasn't
: Please list the criteria that the CWC used right here. ---------->
Look it up yourself.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 08:55:23 PM |
|
|
In News lJ-dnfpzEOddcubenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com,, Bear at
bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net, typed this:
"Andrealphus" wrote
List the criteria right here ---->
Look it up yourself.
Coward.
So, it's second hand information. Why don't you provide a link to
where the CWC actually says it.
I did.
Nope, you didn't.
It was a good question, you are being purposefully obtuse.
No it wasn't
Yes, you were.
Please list the criteria that the CWC used right here. ---------->
Look it up yourself.
Coward.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 09:00:12 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" wrote
: Bear typed this:
: > "Andrealphus" wrote
: >> List the criteria right here ---->
: >
: > Look it up yourself.
:
: Coward.
Dumbass.
: >> So, it's second hand information. Why don't you provide a link to
: >> where the CWC actually says it.
: >
: > I did.
:
: Nope, you didn't.
Yes I did.
: >> It was a good question, you are being purposefully obtuse.
: >
: > No it wasn't
:
: Yes, you were.
It was a bad question.
: >> Please list the criteria that the CWC used right here. ---------->
: >
: > Look it up yourself.
:
: Coward.
Dumbass!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 09:02:15 PM |
|
|
In News lNWdnSEcQ8HPb-beRVn-iw@comcast.com,, Bear at
bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net, typed this:
"Andrealphus" wrote
Bear typed this:
"Andrealphus" wrote
List the criteria right here ---->
Look it up yourself.
Coward.
Dumbass.
Coward.
So, it's second hand information. Why don't you provide a link to
where the CWC actually says it.
I did.
Nope, you didn't.
Yes I did.
Nope, you didn't.
It was a good question, you are being purposefully obtuse.
No it wasn't
Yes, you were.
It was a bad question.
Nope.
Please list the criteria that the CWC used right here. ---------->
Look it up yourself.
Coward.
Dumbass!
Coward.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 09:11:09 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" wrote
: Coward.
You are the one *afraid* to check it out.
: Nope, you didn't.
I sure did. It's your problem if you missed it.
Bad question.
: Coward.
You are the one *afraid* to check it out.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cmdr Buzz Corey" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 11:26:17 PM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
Common sense? It is a chemical, and it was used as a weapon... What else
do you need?
And every weapon or bomb requires some kind of chemical, so I guess you
classify all weapons as chemical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 10:33:13 PM |
|
|
In News duydnSXRidsDm-HeRVn-ug@gbronline.com,, Cmdr Buzz Corey at
me@that.moc, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
Common sense? It is a chemical, and it was used as a weapon... What else
do you need?
And every weapon or bomb requires some kind of chemical, so I guess
you classify all weapons as chemical.
Chemicals in bombs don't burn through your bones just by tossing it on your
skin. There is a distinct difference. Have you ever seen anyone that has
had phosphorus used on them?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 10:33:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:26:17 -0800, Cmdr Buzz Corey <me@that.moc>
wrote:
Andrealphus wrote:
Common sense? It is a chemical, and it was used as a weapon... What else
do you need?
And every weapon or bomb requires some kind of chemical, so I guess you
classify all weapons as chemical.
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended
for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the
types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death
or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals
specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of
the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in
connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in
subparagraph (b).
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 10:47:50 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: 1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
:
: (a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended
: for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the
: types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
:
: (b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death
: or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals
: specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of
: the employment of such munitions and devices;
:
: (c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in
: connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in
: subparagraph (b).
These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW
agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.
Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high
concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a
chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use.
Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed as
chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class.
Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as
biological weapons.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 03:36:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:24:59 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote in message <SZadnXoY8ecL5ObenZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@comcast.com>
"J Young" wrote
: ANSA) - Washington, November 16 - The Pentagon has admitted using white
: phosphorus in Iraq but denies claims made by an Italian documentary that
the
: spontaneously flammable chemical was used against civilians .
:
: Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said on Tuesday that white
: phosphorus was used as an incendiary weapon against insurgent strongholds
: during the US military's siege of the Iraqi city of Falluja last year .
:
: "It was not used against civilians," he said .
:
: Washington had earlier denied the use of white phosphorus at all in
Falluja,
: a city just to the west of Baghdad which suffered widespread destruction
: during the November 2004 offensive .
:
: White phosphorus is a lethal chemical which is capable of burning and
: melting human skin. The smoke it produces is capable of causing external
and
: internal chemical burns .
Thank you for not inaccurately labeling it as a "chemical weapon".
I'm sure the victims will be deliriously happy to learn that it has
not been so classified.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 03:45:35 PM |
|
|
"Boy Toy" wrote
: "Bear" wrote
: >"J Young" wrote
: >: ANSA) - Washington, November 16 - The Pentagon has admitted using white
: >: phosphorus in Iraq but denies claims made by an Italian documentary
that
: >the
: >: spontaneously flammable chemical was used against civilians .
: >:
: >: Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said on Tuesday that white
: >: phosphorus was used as an incendiary weapon against insurgent
strongholds
: >: during the US military's siege of the Iraqi city of Falluja last year .
: >:
: >: "It was not used against civilians," he said .
: >:
: >: Washington had earlier denied the use of white phosphorus at all in
: >Falluja,
: >: a city just to the west of Baghdad which suffered widespread
destruction
: >: during the November 2004 offensive .
: >:
: >: White phosphorus is a lethal chemical which is capable of burning and
: >: melting human skin. The smoke it produces is capable of causing
external
: >and
: >: internal chemical burns .
: >
: >Thank you for not inaccurately labeling it as a "chemical weapon".
:
: I'm sure the victims will be deliriously happy to learn that it has
: not been so classified.
The point is *accurate* reporting!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 03:59:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:45:35 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote in message <b9Kdnb9nHP0KNebeRVn-rQ@comcast.com>
"Boy Toy" wrote
: "Bear" wrote
: >"J Young" wrote
: >: ANSA) - Washington, November 16 - The Pentagon has admitted using white
: >: phosphorus in Iraq but denies claims made by an Italian documentary
that
: >the
: >: spontaneously flammable chemical was used against civilians .
: >:
: >: Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said on Tuesday that white
: >: phosphorus was used as an incendiary weapon against insurgent
strongholds
: >: during the US military's siege of the Iraqi city of Falluja last year .
: >:
: >: "It was not used against civilians," he said .
: >:
: >: Washington had earlier denied the use of white phosphorus at all in
: >Falluja,
: >: a city just to the west of Baghdad which suffered widespread
destruction
: >: during the November 2004 offensive .
: >:
: >: White phosphorus is a lethal chemical which is capable of burning and
: >: melting human skin. The smoke it produces is capable of causing
external
: >and
: >: internal chemical burns .
: >
: >Thank you for not inaccurately labeling it as a "chemical weapon".
:
: I'm sure the victims will be deliriously happy to learn that it has
: not been so classified.
The point is *accurate* reporting!
Or a capricious definition of what constitutes a chemical weapons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 04:06:04 PM |
|
|
"Boy Toy" wrote
: Or a capricious definition of what constitutes a chemical weapons.
That's what most reporters use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 04:09:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:45:35 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Boy Toy" wrote
: "Bear" wrote
: >"J Young" wrote
: >: ANSA) - Washington, November 16 - The Pentagon has admitted using white
: >: phosphorus in Iraq but denies claims made by an Italian documentary
that
: >the
: >: spontaneously flammable chemical was used against civilians .
: >:
: >: Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said on Tuesday that white
: >: phosphorus was used as an incendiary weapon against insurgent
strongholds
: >: during the US military's siege of the Iraqi city of Falluja last year .
: >:
: >: "It was not used against civilians," he said .
: >:
: >: Washington had earlier denied the use of white phosphorus at all in
: >Falluja,
: >: a city just to the west of Baghdad which suffered widespread
destruction
: >: during the November 2004 offensive .
: >:
: >: White phosphorus is a lethal chemical which is capable of burning and
: >: melting human skin. The smoke it produces is capable of causing
external
: >and
: >: internal chemical burns .
: >
: >Thank you for not inaccurately labeling it as a "chemical weapon".
:
: I'm sure the victims will be deliriously happy to learn that it has
: not been so classified.
The point is *accurate* reporting!
"But America is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which
it ratified in 1997, and that agreement forbids the use of any
substance to kill or harm either soldiers or civilians if it is being
used mostly for its toxicity.
"Although the Pentagon spokesman described it as an "incendiary
weapon", white phosphorus has clear chemical effects on its human
targets - melting away the skin of its victims and burning quickly
into the tissue, especially on exposed parts of the body like the face
and hands.
"A US Army handbook published in 1999 states clearly that the use of
white phosphorus burster bombs against enemy personnel is "against the
law of land warfare" and the US State Department clearly denied last
year that any such weapons were being deployed in Iraq."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1875057,00.html
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 04:14:55 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: "Bear" wrote:
: >"Boy Toy" wrote
: >: "Bear" wrote
: >: >"J Young" wrote
: >: >: ANSA) - Washington, November 16 - The Pentagon has admitted using
white
: >: >: phosphorus in Iraq but denies claims made by an Italian documentary
: >that
: >: >the
: >: >: spontaneously flammable chemical was used against civilians .
: >: >:
: >: >: Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said on Tuesday that white
: >: >: phosphorus was used as an incendiary weapon against insurgent
: >strongholds
: >: >: during the US military's siege of the Iraqi city of Falluja last
year .
: >: >:
: >: >: "It was not used against civilians," he said .
: >: >:
: >: >: Washington had earlier denied the use of white phosphorus at all in
: >: >Falluja,
: >: >: a city just to the west of Baghdad which suffered widespread
: >destruction
: >: >: during the November 2004 offensive .
: >: >:
: >: >: White phosphorus is a lethal chemical which is capable of burning
and
: >: >: melting human skin. The smoke it produces is capable of causing
: >external
: >: >and
: >: >: internal chemical burns .
: >: >
: >: >Thank you for not inaccurately labeling it as a "chemical weapon".
: >:
: >: I'm sure the victims will be deliriously happy to learn that it has
: >: not been so classified.
: >
: >The point is *accurate* reporting!
:
: "But America is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which
: it ratified in 1997, and that agreement forbids the use of any
: substance to kill or harm either soldiers or civilians if it is being
: used mostly for its toxicity.
:
: "Although the Pentagon spokesman described it as an "incendiary
: weapon", white phosphorus has clear chemical effects on its human
: targets - melting away the skin of its victims and burning quickly
: into the tissue, especially on exposed parts of the body like the face
: and hands.
:
: "A US Army handbook published in 1999 states clearly that the use of
: white phosphorus burster bombs against enemy personnel is "against the
: law of land warfare" and the US State Department clearly denied last
: year that any such weapons were being deployed in Iraq."
It is not *classified* as a chemical weapon.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
16 Nov 2005 04:31:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:14:55 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Adam H." wrote
: "Bear" wrote:
: >"Boy Toy" wrote
: >: "Bear" wrote
: >: >"J Young" wrote
: >: >: ANSA) - Washington, November 16 - The Pentagon has admitted using
white
: >: >: phosphorus in Iraq but denies claims made by an Italian documentary
: >that
: >: >the
: >: >: spontaneously flammable chemical was used against civilians .
: >: >:
: >: >: Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said on Tuesday that white
: >: >: phosphorus was used as an incendiary weapon against insurgent
: >strongholds
: >: >: during the US military's siege of the Iraqi city of Falluja last
year .
: >: >:
: >: >: "It was not used against civilians," he said .
: >: >:
: >: >: Washington had earlier denied the use of white phosphorus at all in
: >: >Falluja,
: >: >: a city just to the west of Baghdad which suffered widespread
: >destruction
: >: >: during the November 2004 offensive .
: >: >:
: >: >: White phosphorus is a lethal chemical which is capable of burning
and
: >: >: melting human skin. The smoke it produces is capable of causing
: >external
: >: >and
: >: >: internal chemical burns .
: >: >
: >: >Thank you for not inaccurately labeling it as a "chemical weapon".
: >:
: >: I'm sure the victims will be deliriously happy to learn that it has
: >: not been so classified.
: >
: >The point is *accurate* reporting!
:
: "But America is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which
: it ratified in 1997, and that agreement forbids the use of any
: substance to kill or harm either soldiers or civilians if it is being
: used mostly for its toxicity.
:
: "Although the Pentagon spokesman described it as an "incendiary
: weapon", white phosphorus has clear chemical effects on its human
: targets - melting away the skin of its victims and burning quickly
: into the tissue, especially on exposed parts of the body like the face
: and hands.
:
: "A US Army handbook published in 1999 states clearly that the use of
: white phosphorus burster bombs against enemy personnel is "against the
: law of land warfare" and the US State Department clearly denied last
: year that any such weapons were being deployed in Iraq."
It is not *classified* as a chemical weapon.
It is when it's used as one.
When a weapon's primary effect in use comes from the chemical
properties of the weapon, then it IS a chemical weapon. That's part of
the definition.
Oh, and you ignored the part about the use of WP against personnel
being against the law of land warfare - why is that?
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
