| 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: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
03 Dec 2005 10:05:31 PM |
|
|
"Beacon" wrote
: Bear?
:
: Did you plainly condemn the use of white Phosphorus by US troops?
:
: I thought you mentioned it was not acceptable but I don't recall you
: condemning its use. It was used on innocent civilians. do you condemn
that?
Condemn? If you mean, do I strongly disapprove, the answer is yes.
: Also, what do you think should be done about.
: 1. The use of WP as it was used by Us troops in Falluja?
: 2. The denial of its use in that place by US authorities?
I have no idea. It isn't my call.
--
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: "Beacon" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
03 Dec 2005 11:19:10 PM |
|
|
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote in message
news:DLCdnUYFQM6x9g_enZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Beacon" wrote
: Bear?
:
: Did you plainly condemn the use of white Phosphorus by US troops?
:
: I thought you mentioned it was not acceptable but I don't recall you
: condemning its use. It was used on innocent civilians. do you condemn
that?
Condemn? If you mean, do I strongly disapprove, the answer is yes.
No i mean "condemn"
Look up the word. It is quite clear.
"Disapprove" is not condemn and does nothing to show any opinion that wrong
was done! It is quite clear where you are coming from.
: Also, what do you think should be done about.
: 1. The use of WP as it was used by Us troops in Falluja?
: 2. The denial of its use in that place by US authorities?
I have no idea. It isn't my call.
I didnt ask what you would do if in charge. I asked your opinion. I note how
you try to side slip from giving a moral issue. Why won't you answer the
question? Whay wont you express an opinion? are you afraid of being
responsible for having your own opinions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
03 Dec 2005 11:57:47 PM |
|
|
"Beacon" wrote
: No i mean "condemn"
: Look up the word. It is quite clear.
:
: "Disapprove" is not condemn and does nothing to show any opinion that
wrong
: was done! It is quite clear where you are coming from.
You are the one who needs to look it up. moron! But I'll do it for you so
you don't get lost!
con·demn
tr.v., -demned, -demn·ing, -demns.
1. To express strong disapproval of: condemned the needless waste of food.
2. To pronounce judgment against; sentence: condemned the felons to prison.
3. To judge or declare to be unfit for use or consumption, usually by
official order: condemn an old building.
4. To lend credence to or provide evidence for an adverse judgment against:
were condemned by their actions.
5. Law. To appropriate (property) for public use.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton
Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Oh my, look at the first definition!
The verb condemn has 5 senses (first 5 from tagged texts)
1. (18) condemn, reprobate, decry, objurgate, excoriate -- (express strong
disapproval of; "We condemn the racism in South Africa"; "These ideas were
reprobated")
2. (2) condemn -- (declare or judge unfit; "The building was condemned by
the inspector")
3. (1) condemn -- (compel or force into a particular state or activity; "His
devotion to his sick wife condemned him to a lonely existence")
4. (1) condemn -- (demonstrate the guilt of (someone); "Her strange behavior
condemned her")
5. (1) sentence, condemn, doom -- (pronounce a sentence on (somebody) in a
court of law; "He was condemned to ten years in prison")
WordNet 2.1 Copyright 2005 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
And look at the first sense there.
Now don't you look stupid.
--
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: "Beacon" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
04 Dec 2005 09:36:33 AM |
|
|
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote in message
news:wuWdnUuZSqvmGA_eRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Beacon" wrote
: No i mean "condemn"
: Look up the word. It is quite clear.
:
: "Disapprove" is not condemn and does nothing to show any opinion that
wrong
: was done! It is quite clear where you are coming from.
You are the one who needs to look it up. moron! But I'll do it for you so
you don't get lost!
You will not condemn the "shake and bake" operations in Falluja!
It is clear you will NOT do so!
All you have to do is write "I condemn the shake and bake operations"
But you wont!
It is clear that you wont! It is clear to everyone else what sort of person
you are. It is clear even to stupid people so accusations against morons as
if they are lesser people does not apply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
02 Dec 2005 08:25:35 AM |
|
|
"Beacon" wrote
: "No One" wrote
: >If you had bothered to read with the sort of
: > comprehension expected of a 4th grade student, you'd know that
: > I said *repeatedly* that the use of this stuff on people is
: > inhumane.
:
: So you ARE saying it is WRONG! You differ from Bear here.
You are a damn liar! I maintained that it was wrong to use WP against human
targets all the way through this thread!
--
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 |
02 Dec 2005 05:37:22 AM |
|
|
In News m3psogdtm2.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News m3lkz4p62n.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
Sigh. The question was whether the burns were due to heat versus a
chemical reaction
Heat, as a result of a chemical reaction. What possible difference
does it make as to whether or not the reaction is with human skin?
So, tossing acid on a person is bad, but tossing WP on them is
okay-dokey? Man, you really are screwed in the head.
Hey moron, the distinction between an incendiary and chemical
weapon is whether you are burned by the heat or are injured due to
a chemical reaction.
You're a dumbass. Guess what? With WP you are burned due to a chemical
reaction. No ifs, ands, or buts. That you draw some stupid distinction
about how that chemical reaction takes place only speaks to your stupidity.
--
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 |
03 Dec 2005 02:07:45 AM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News m3psogdtm2.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
Hey moron, the distinction between an incendiary and chemical
weapon is whether you are burned by the heat or are injured due to
a chemical reaction.
You're a dumbass. Guess what? With WP you are burned due to a chemical
reaction. No ifs, ands, or buts. That you draw some stupid distinction
about how that chemical reaction takes place only speaks to your stupidity.
For someone who doesn't understand high school physics (in your case,
maybe stuff you should have learned in the 8th grade), I really wouldn't
talk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beacon" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
03 Dec 2005 09:53:29 PM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3oe3yli4u.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News m3psogdtm2.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
Hey moron, the distinction between an incendiary and chemical
weapon is whether you are burned by the heat or are injured due to
a chemical reaction.
You're a dumbass. Guess what? With WP you are burned due to a
chemical
reaction. No ifs, ands, or buts. That you draw some stupid
distinction
about how that chemical reaction takes place only speaks to your
stupidity.
For someone who doesn't understand high school physics (in your case,
maybe stuff you should have learned in the 8th grade), I really wouldn't
talk.
There is no point he just wont condemn the use of WP and keeps gharping on
about a single part of the CWC when the body responsible for the CWC and
everyone else and their mother knows that the use of White Phosphorus was
wrong and should be condemned. I have yet to see Bear condemn the use of WP.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
03 Dec 2005 10:14:40 PM |
|
|
"Beacon" wrote
: There is no point he just wont condemn the use of WP and keeps gharping on
: about a single part of the CWC when the body responsible for the CWC and
: everyone else and their mother knows that the use of White Phosphorus was
: wrong and should be condemned.
How dense can you be. As I have said, I am not talking about the legality or
morality of using WP against humans. Those are opinions. I was talking about
the facts as to how WP weapons are "classified"! Two absolutely different
points!
: I have yet to see Bear condemn the use of WP.
I don't go around condemning anybody or anything. But I have said in many
ways how I strongly disapprove of using WP against human targets. If you
haven't seen that, blame your own blindness!
--
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: "Beacon" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
03 Dec 2005 11:28:34 PM |
|
|
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote in message
news:DP2dnb4EJu7M8A_enZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Beacon" wrote
: There is no point he just wont condemn the use of WP and keeps gharping
on
: about a single part of the CWC when the body responsible for the CWC and
: everyone else and their mother knows that the use of White Phosphorus
was
: wrong and should be condemned.
How dense can you be. As I have said, I am not talking about the legality
or
morality of using WP against humans.
We know you re not! You are AVOIDING the issue of the use of WP in Falluja.
You harp on about technical definitions biut youy AVOID the acts that
actually happened. You are like people who say Christ was crusified with
Iron nails and others insist it was copper nails. the point is that people
suffered! Whether you argue what to have a crusifix one needs two pieces of
timber and that there is historical evidence that there was only one piece
of timber is MISSING the entire issue. Christ was crusified! That was
wrong! argue about the nature of the nails all you want but people will see
you do not recognise the crusifiction!
Those are opinions.
Yes! EXACTLY! They are opinions you refuse to express! Why do you not
condemn the use of WP in Falluja?
I was talking about
the facts as to how WP weapons are "classified"! Two absolutely different
points!
Keep your bucket of nails and worry abouot what they are made of. the rest
of us know the dirty deed for which they were used. We know you have been
out disposing of the bodies by the quicklime on your boots.
: I have yet to see Bear condemn the use of WP.
I don't go around condemning anybody or anything. But I have said in many
ways how I strongly disapprove of using WP against human targets. If you
haven't seen that, blame your own blindness!
I HAVE seen tghat! Which makes all the more obvious that you will not
CONDEMN the action.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
04 Dec 2005 12:04:10 AM |
|
|
"Beacon" wrote
: "Bear" wrote
: > "Beacon" wrote
: > : There is no point he just wont condemn the use of WP and keeps
gharping
: on
: > : about a single part of the CWC when the body responsible for the CWC
and
: > : everyone else and their mother knows that the use of White Phosphorus
: was
: > : wrong and should be condemned.
: >
: > How dense can you be. As I have said, I am not talking about the
legality
: or
: > morality of using WP against humans.
:
: We know you re not!
Because they are two separate issues.
: Yes! EXACTLY! They are opinions you refuse to express! Why do you not
: condemn the use of WP in Falluja?
I told you that I strongly disapprove of the use of WP against human
targets. That's my opinion. If you don't like it, that's your problem!
: > I don't go around condemning anybody or anything. But I have said in
many
: > ways how I strongly disapprove of using WP against human targets. If you
: > haven't seen that, blame your own blindness!
:
: I HAVE seen tghat! Which makes all the more obvious that you will not
: CONDEMN the action.
That's exactly right, but I do strongly disapprove of the action!
--
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: "Beacon" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
04 Dec 2005 09:37:31 AM |
|
|
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote in message
news:kdCdnf2C5NRnGw_eRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
"Beacon" wrote
: "Bear" wrote
: > "Beacon" wrote
: > : There is no point he just wont condemn the use of WP and keeps
gharping
: on
: > : about a single part of the CWC when the body responsible for the CWC
and
: > : everyone else and their mother knows that the use of White
Phosphorus
: was
: > : wrong and should be condemned.
: >
: > How dense can you be. As I have said, I am not talking about the
legality
: or
: > morality of using WP against humans.
:
: We know you re not!
Because they are two separate issues.
: Yes! EXACTLY! They are opinions you refuse to express! Why do you not
: condemn the use of WP in Falluja?
I told you that I strongly disapprove of the use of WP against human
targets. That's my opinion. If you don't like it, that's your problem!
: > I don't go around condemning anybody or anything. But I have said in
many
: > ways how I strongly disapprove of using WP against human targets. If
you
: > haven't seen that, blame your own blindness!
:
: I HAVE seen tghat! Which makes all the more obvious that you will not
: CONDEMN the action.
That's exactly right, but I do strongly disapprove of the action!
You refuse to condemn it! we all know that now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beacon" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
30 Nov 2005 09:06:17 AM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:kzgjf.7150$N45.899@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In News m33blebtf7.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
[snip]
A stick of dynamite derives its explosive effect from a purely
chemical reaction.
Do you mean that the act of fusing the dynamite is chemical? Is the act
of stricking a match and lighting the fuse chemical? No, in order for a
stick of dynamite to explode, one has to manually introduce some
mechanical
means.
It is not considered to be a chemical weapon.
If you took dynamite out of the stick ground it down and placed it on
someones eyes and lit it burinubg their eyes I would consider it a chemical
weapon!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
30 Nov 2005 06:39:43 PM |
|
|
In News Jdjjf.5723$xP2.5372@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net,, Beacon at
beacon@nospam.please, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:kzgjf.7150$N45.899@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In News m33blebtf7.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
[snip]
A stick of dynamite derives its explosive effect from a purely
chemical reaction.
Do you mean that the act of fusing the dynamite is chemical? Is
the act of stricking a match and lighting the fuse chemical? No,
in order for a stick of dynamite to explode, one has to manually
introduce some mechanical means.
It is not considered to be a chemical weapon.
If you took dynamite out of the stick ground it down and placed it on
someones eyes and lit it burinubg their eyes I would consider it a
chemical weapon!
Striking a match and lighting it requires a mechanical action that is not
part of the dynamite's normal function. Additionally, once the dynamite
was expended, the wound ceases to grow. WP will continue to burn two, and
at a slower rate, through the bone as long as it is in direct contact with
the victim. Being a combat veteran I have seen the effects of WP, I've
seen it burn right through people, military and civilians and witnessed it
dropping out the other side before medical help could be summoned. If you
would have seen it, you too would know the difference between WP, and
Dynamite.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
30 Nov 2005 08:16:08 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News Jdjjf.5723$xP2.5372@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net,, Beacon at
beacon@nospam.please, typed this:
Striking a match and lighting it requires a mechanical action that is not
part of the dynamite's normal function. Additionally, once the dynamite
was expended, the wound ceases to grow. WP will continue to burn two, and
at a slower rate, through the bone as long as it is in direct contact with
the victim. Being a combat veteran I have seen the effects of WP, I've
seen it burn right through people, military and civilians and witnessed it
dropping out the other side before medical help could be summoned. If you
would have seen it, you too would know the difference between WP, and
Dynamite.
What's the difference in effect between that and having a WW-II style
"flame thrower" aimed at you? All you've indicated is that WP is some
sort of incendiary weapon, and very nasty stuff if you are burned by
it, but its adverse effect is not due mainly to toxicity.
Suppose you have two chemicals that react with each other to produce
lots and lots of heat, and store them in a small sphere, which you
fire like a bullet, mixing the chemicals internally, and which then
burns through you, even though the chemicals never come in direct
contact with your skin or any other part of you, as they are
completely self-enclosed in the spheres. What would you call that?
You don't have to call it a chemical weapon to decide it is too nasty
to use on people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beacon" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
01 Dec 2005 05:35:56 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3r78xh8bv.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News Jdjjf.5723$xP2.5372@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net,, Beacon at
beacon@nospam.please, typed this:
Striking a match and lighting it requires a mechanical action that is
not
part of the dynamite's normal function. Additionally, once the
dynamite
was expended, the wound ceases to grow. WP will continue to burn two,
and
at a slower rate, through the bone as long as it is in direct contact
with
the victim. Being a combat veteran I have seen the effects of WP, I've
seen it burn right through people, military and civilians and witnessed
it
dropping out the other side before medical help could be summoned. If
you
would have seen it, you too would know the difference between WP, and
Dynamite.
What's the difference in effect between that and having a WW-II style
"flame thrower" aimed at you? All you've indicated is that WP is some
sort of incendiary weapon, and very nasty stuff if you are burned by
it, but its adverse effect is not due mainly to toxicity.
Indeed I suggest you look up "RED Phosphorus" which was developed after WWII
because of the chemical problems associated with White phosphorus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
01 Dec 2005 08:41:45 PM |
|
|
"Beacon" <beacon@nospam.please> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3r78xh8bv.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
What's the difference in effect between that and having a WW-II style
"flame thrower" aimed at you? All you've indicated is that WP is some
sort of incendiary weapon, and very nasty stuff if you are burned by
it, but its adverse effect is not due mainly to toxicity.
Indeed I suggest you look up "RED Phosphorus" which was developed after WWII
because of the chemical problems associated with White phosphorus.
The medical study I looked up indicated that the primary cause of
damage for white phosphorus is heat. For red phosphorus, the ignition
temperature is 290 degrees (Celsius) compared to 30 for white
phosphorus, so ease of handling and storage just might be the issue.
White phosphorus is, however, highly toxic if ingested. If you check
<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/whitepho.html>, you can find a
summary regarding that. You'll note that it does not claim that
exposure to the skin causes a major toxic reaction and inhaling fumes
of it (after it burns, so you really have the oxide at that point) can
cause respiratory track irritation and coughing, but you won't roll
over and drop dead. At least, that is what the EPA claims on the
web site quoted above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beacon" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
02 Dec 2005 03:26:26 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3psogp6g9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Beacon" <beacon@nospam.please> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3r78xh8bv.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
What's the difference in effect between that and having a WW-II style
"flame thrower" aimed at you? All you've indicated is that WP is some
sort of incendiary weapon, and very nasty stuff if you are burned by
it, but its adverse effect is not due mainly to toxicity.
Indeed I suggest you look up "RED Phosphorus" which was developed after
WWII
because of the chemical problems associated with White phosphorus.
The medical study I looked up indicated that the primary cause of
damage for white phosphorus is heat. For red phosphorus, the ignition
temperature is 290 degrees (Celsius) compared to 30 for white
phosphorus, so ease of handling and storage just might be the issue.
White phosphorus is, however, highly toxic if ingested. If you check
<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/whitepho.html>, you can find a
summary regarding that. You'll note that it does not claim that
exposure to the skin causes a major toxic reaction and inhaling fumes
of it (after it burns, so you really have the oxide at that point) can
cause respiratory track irritation and coughing, but you won't roll
over and drop dead. At least, that is what the EPA claims on the
web site quoted above.
I would tend to take the point here. As a chemical or biological weapon for
effect you would have a better effect from Sarin or Ricin (though not as
immediate from Ricin). Over longer exposure periods for short term White
Phosphorus probably is more "harmful" than say Uranium. Of curse the WP
Sarin etc will de naturate but the Uranium will be around for millennia. As
such the men in suits who plan these "wars" even if they could, wouldn't
have WP as a chemical weapon of choice. Mind you they wouldn't use "mustard
gas" either for similar reasons. WP was not designed as a chemical weapon
and only has those properties as a side effect from the original design as a
dispersed smoke producer and flare.
So it seems to me that there will be some medium rank field officers
disciplined but it will not go higher than that. They will probably tout the
line that "some stupid commanders knew it was not banned for use and thought
they might as well make use of its "other banned" properties".
"Of course the President and administration was not aware of the use of
White Phosphorus in this fashion" isnt really an answer. Why?
1. It excuses its use.
2. It offers no apology.
3. It offers no liability.
4. The speed of denial of use indicates an attempt to deny the issue.
5. The "classification" gambit comes across as another distancing method.
In the final analysis, the US military authorities have to come out of their
hidey holes with their hands up having being subjected to an international
law "shake and bake"! They dont want to expose themselves to hostile fire in
the open without the protection of duplicity and obfuscation. It detracts
from staying on message and "letting freedom ring".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
30 Nov 2005 09:17:12 PM |
|
|
No One wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News Jdjjf.5723$xP2.5372@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net,, Beacon at
beacon@nospam.please, typed this:
Striking a match and lighting it requires a mechanical action that is not
part of the dynamite's normal function. Additionally, once the dynamite
was expended, the wound ceases to grow. WP will continue to burn two, and
at a slower rate, through the bone as long as it is in direct contact with
the victim. Being a combat veteran I have seen the effects of WP, I've
seen it burn right through people, military and civilians and witnessed it
dropping out the other side before medical help could be summoned. If you
would have seen it, you too would know the difference between WP, and
Dynamite.
What's the difference in effect between that and having a WW-II style
"flame thrower" aimed at you? All you've indicated is that WP is some
sort of incendiary weapon, and very nasty stuff if you are burned by
it, but its adverse effect is not due mainly to toxicity.
The main difference between the use of WP bombs and the traditional
flamethrower is that the FT gives the operator a great deal more
discretion in its targetting. Aerial dropped "dumb-bombs" and artillery
do not distinguish between combattant and civilian -- hence the
restrictions on their use. Chemical gas weapons, like the agents used
at Halabja, are likewise notoriously unable to spare the innocent. This
is the reason why their use is considered unethical. It demonstrates a
wanton disregard for the sactity of innocent life.
By using WP against mixed (insurgent/civilian) targets in Fallujah, the
US exposed itself as a monster and coward every bit as bad as Saddam, if
not worse. We lack the excuse of desperation, which the hard-pressed
Iraqis had in the mid-Eighties against the numerically superior Iranian foe.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
30 Nov 2005 10:16:13 PM |
|
|
Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News Jdjjf.5723$xP2.5372@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net,, Beacon at
beacon@nospam.please, typed this:
Striking a match and lighting it requires a mechanical action that
is not part of the dynamite's normal function. Additionally, once
the dynamite was expended, the wound ceases to grow. WP will
continue to burn two, and at a slower rate, through the bone as
long as it is in direct contact with the victim. Being a combat
veteran I have seen the effects of WP, I've seen it burn right
through people, military and civilians and witnessed it dropping
out the other side before medical help could be summoned. If you
would have seen it, you too would know the difference between WP,
and Dynamite.
What's the difference in effect between that and having a WW-II style
"flame thrower" aimed at you? All you've indicated is that WP is some
sort of incendiary weapon, and very nasty stuff if you are burned by
it, but its adverse effect is not due mainly to toxicity.
The main difference between the use of WP bombs and the traditional
flamethrower is that the FT gives the operator a great deal more
discretion in its targetting.
And if we control the flamethrower by a web cam (over a flaky
network connection)? :-)
Aerial dropped "dumb-bombs" and artillery do not distinguish
between combattant and civilian -- hence the restrictions on their
use. Chemical gas weapons, like the agents used at Halabja, are
likewise notoriously unable to spare the innocent. This is the
reason why their use is considered unethical. It demonstrates a
wanton disregard for the sactity of innocent life.
Errr, I said it was inhumane to use the stuff. That wasn't the
question. It was simply whether the stuff should be classified
as a chemical weapon or something else. I can see a reasonable
argument for classifying it as something else, but how it is
classified doesn't change my opinion on whether it should be
used or not.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beacon" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
01 Dec 2005 05:39:00 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3acflh2rs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> writes:
[snip]
Errr, I said it was inhumane to use the stuff. That wasn't the
question. It was simply whether the stuff should be classified
as a chemical weapon or something else. I can see a reasonable
argument for classifying it as something else, but how it is
classified doesn't change my opinion on whether it should be
used or not.
Right! this IS the kernel of the issue. Wrong was done! What you call it
does not really matter except to the rivisionist mindset. the point is to
distract from WRONGDOING to arguing about semantics.
I mean I could easily claim that of course the US know chemical weappons
were used in Iraq since they said Saddam used them. This happens to be true
but the WRONG or the evil acts done to civilians is what counts. People just
dont want to admit that they are as capable of doing as wrong as some "evil"
enemy they have concocted. when their actions are exposed as just as bad
then they identify with the very thing they claim to be against!
That is what the "classification" issue revolves around!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
30 Nov 2005 10:36:21 PM |
|
|
In News m3acflh2rs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News Jdjjf.5723$xP2.5372@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net,, Beacon at
beacon@nospam.please, typed this:
Striking a match and lighting it requires a mechanical action that
is not part of the dynamite's normal function. Additionally, once
the dynamite was expended, the wound ceases to grow. WP will
continue to burn two, and at a slower rate, through the bone as
long as it is in direct contact with the victim. Being a combat
veteran I have seen the effects of WP, I've seen it burn right
through people, military and civilians and witnessed it dropping
out the other side before medical help could be summoned. If you
would have seen it, you too would know the difference between WP,
and Dynamite.
What's the difference in effect between that and having a WW-II
style "flame thrower" aimed at you? All you've indicated is that
WP is some sort of incendiary weapon, and very nasty stuff if you
are burned by it, but its adverse effect is not due mainly to
toxicity.
The main difference between the use of WP bombs and the traditional
flamethrower is that the FT gives the operator a great deal more
discretion in its targetting.
And if we control the flamethrower by a web cam (over a flaky
network connection)? :-)
If frogs had wings your grandmother wouldn't bump her ***** when she hopped.
--
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 |
30 Nov 2005 11:25:25 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News m3acflh2rs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News Jdjjf.5723$xP2.5372@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net,, Beacon at
beacon@nospam.please, typed this:
Striking a match and lighting it requires a mechanical action that
is not part of the dynamite's normal function. Additionally, once
the dynamite was expended, the wound ceases to grow. WP will
continue to burn two, and at a slower rate, through the bone as
long as it is in direct contact with the victim. Being a combat
veteran I have seen the effects of WP, I've seen it burn right
through people, military and civilians and witnessed it dropping
out the other side before medical help could be summoned. If you
would have seen it, you too would know the difference between WP,
and Dynamite.
What's the difference in effect between that and having a WW-II
style "flame thrower" aimed at you? All you've indicated is that
WP is some sort of incendiary weapon, and very nasty stuff if you
are burned by it, but its adverse effect is not due mainly to
toxicity.
The main difference between the use of WP bombs and the traditional
flamethrower is that the FT gives the operator a great deal more
discretion in its targetting.
And if we control the flamethrower by a web cam (over a flaky
network connection)? :-)
If frogs had wings your grandmother wouldn't bump her ***** when she hopped.
Back in 7th grade, I take it? :-) The point, of course, was that an
operator's "discretion" is scant comfort for someone being burned to
death, and is not particularly useful as a criteria for classifying
a weapon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
01 Dec 2005 06:41:44 AM |
|
|
In News m3zmnltmod.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News m3acflh2rs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News Jdjjf.5723$xP2.5372@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net,, Beacon at
beacon@nospam.please, typed this:
Striking a match and lighting it requires a mechanical action
that is not part of the dynamite's normal function.
Additionally, once the dynamite was expended, the wound ceases
to grow. WP will continue to burn two, and at a slower rate,
through the bone as long as it is in direct contact with the
victim. Being a combat veteran I have seen the effects of WP,
I've seen it burn right through people, military and civilians
and witnessed it dropping out the other side before medical help
could be summoned. If you would have seen it, you too would
know the difference between WP, and Dynamite.
What's the difference in effect between that and having a WW-II
style "flame thrower" aimed at you? All you've indicated is that
WP is some sort of incendiary weapon, and very nasty stuff if you
are burned by it, but its adverse effect is not due mainly to
toxicity.
The main difference between the use of WP bombs and the traditional
flamethrower is that the FT gives the operator a great deal more
discretion in its targetting.
And if we control the flamethrower by a web cam (over a flaky
network connection)? :-)
If frogs had wings your grandmother wouldn't bump her ***** when she
hopped.
Back in 7th grade, I take it? :-) The point, of course, was that an
operator's "discretion" is scant comfort for someone being burned to
death, and is not particularly useful as a criteria for classifying
a weapon.
It is when that weapon can be pointed away from civilians and noncombatants,
WP is not typically used in such a descretionary fashion.
--
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 |
01 Dec 2005 08:53:07 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News m3zmnltmod.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News m3acflh2rs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> writes:
If frogs had wings your grandmother wouldn't bump her ***** when she
hopped.
Back in 7th grade, I take it? :-) The point, of course, was that an
operator's "discretion" is scant comfort for someone being burned to
death, and is not particularly useful as a criteria for classifying
a weapon.
It is when that weapon can be pointed away from civilians and noncombatants,
WP is not typically used in such a descretionary fashion.
You don't have to use a flame thrower with much discretion either, and
any discretion or the lack thereof is not particularly relevent to whether
something is an incendiary weapon or a chemical weapon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
30 Nov 2005 11:43:46 PM |
|
|
No One wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News m3acflh2rs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net,, No One at
noone@nospam.pacbell.net, typed this:
Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
In News Jdjjf.5723$xP2.5372@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net,, Beacon at
beacon@nospam.please, typed this:
Striking a match and lighting it requires a mechanical action that
is not part of the dynamite's normal function. Additionally, once
the dynamite was expended, the wound ceases to grow. WP will
continue to burn two, and at a slower rate, through the bone as
long as it is in direct contact with the victim. Being a combat
veteran I have seen the effects of WP, I've seen it burn right
through people, military and civilians and witnessed it dropping
out the other side before medical help could be summoned. If you
would have seen it, you too would know the difference between WP,
and Dynamite.
What's the difference in effect between that and having a WW-II
style "flame thrower" aimed at you? All you've indicated is that
WP is some sort of incendiary weapon, and very nasty stuff if you
are burned by it, but its adverse effect is not due mainly to
toxicity.
The main difference between the use of WP bombs and the traditional
flamethrower is that the FT gives the operator a great deal more
discretion in its targetting.
And if we control the flamethrower by a web cam (over a flaky
network connection)? :-)
If frogs had wings your grandmother wouldn't bump her ***** when she hopped.
Back in 7th grade, I take it? :-) The point, of course, was that an
operator's "discretion" is scant comfort for someone being burned to
death, and is not particularly useful as a criteria for classifying
a weapon.
As the great General Wm T Sherman said: "War is Hell" but the
compassionate warrior seeks to limit its intensity.
There just aren't many nice ways of killing an enemy, but the point is
you are *supposed* to limit the killing to those who choose to
participate in combat. A FT operator, or the "n_gg_r behind the
trigger" of an M16, can visually ID his target, and avoid massacring the
innocent. Such is the theory.
That was my point. Chem weapons and WP aren't illegal because they are
"mean" They are illegal because they are impossible to control
effectively, and generally disproportionate to the task at hand. Using
WP (or Napalm) will cause wanton destruction of property, which is also
contrary to the Laws of Land Warfare.
This is the core of military ethics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
30 Nov 2005 11:55:00 PM |
|
|
Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
The main difference between the use of WP bombs and the traditional
flamethrower is that the FT gives the operator a great deal more
discretion in its targetting.
And if we control the flamethrower by a web cam (over a flaky
network connection)? :-)
If frogs had wings your grandmother wouldn't bump her ***** when she hopped.
Back in 7th grade, I take it? :-) The point, of course, was that an
operator's "discretion" is scant comfort for someone being burned to
death, and is not particularly useful as a criteria for classifying
a weapon.
As the great General Wm T Sherman said: "War is Hell" but the
compassionate warrior seeks to limit its intensity.
There just aren't many nice ways of killing an enemy, but the point is
you are *supposed* to limit the killing to those who choose to
participate in combat. A FT operator, or the "n_gg_r behind the
trigger" of an M16, can visually ID his target, and avoid massacring
the innocent. Such is the theory.
That was my point. Chem weapons and WP aren't illegal because they
are "mean" They are illegal because they are impossible to control
effectively, and generally disproportionate to the task at hand.
But the discussion was about whether WP is a chemical or incendiary
weapon, nothing more - everyone now in the discussion agrees this
stuff should not be used on people. It's "legitimate" military
use seems to be as something to ingite an explosive, in which case
very little would be needed, plus some other uses where it is not
lobbed in the general direction of anyone (e.g., to create a
smokescreen).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
01 Dec 2005 12:11:48 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL10@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
The main difference between the use of WP bombs and the traditional
flamethrower is that the FT gives the operator a great deal more
discretion in its targetting.
And if we control the flamethrower by a web cam (over a flaky
network connection)? :-)
If frogs had wings your grandmother wouldn't bump her ***** when she hopped.
Back in 7th grade, I take it? :-) The point, of course, was that an
operator's "discretion" is scant comfort for someone being burned to
death, and is not particularly useful as a criteria for classifying
a weapon.
As the great General Wm T Sherman said: "War is Hell" but the
compassionate warrior seeks to limit its intensity.
There just aren't many nice ways of killing an enemy, but the point is
you are *supposed* to limit the killing to those who choose to
participate in combat. A FT operator, or the "n_gg_r behind the
trigger" of an M16, can visually ID his target, and avoid massacring
the innocent. Such is the theory.
That was my point. Chem weapons and WP aren't illegal because they
are "mean" They are illegal because they are impossible to control
effectively, and generally disproportionate to the task at hand.
But the discussion was about whether WP is a chemical or incendiary
weapon, nothing more - everyone now in the discussion agrees this
stuff should not be used on people. It's "legitimate" military
use seems to be as something to ingite an explosive, in which case
very little would be needed, plus some other uses where it is not
lobbed in the general direction of anyone (e.g., to create a
smokescreen).
One would hope that everyone agrees that WP (and Napalm) are ghastly
weapons which should be avoided. The legitimate military uses of WP are
not limited to obscurement and fire registration (artillery targeting)
It may be used to destroy targets by virtue of its incindiary nature,
such as a tank farm or warehouse. This whole thread seems to have
missed the point behind the Laws of Land Warfare, which is meant to
limit civilian casualties and destruction of property, not to make
warfare "nice"
There just aren't many pleasant ways to die. The semantics of
classifications have created a smokescreen of their own, rather than
informing a discussion on ethical and efficacious warfare.
I was incensed at "Bear" because he seemed to be minimizing the gruesome
nature of WP munitions. That is a tough sell, and unfortunately it now
looks like I was right months ago when I compared the destruction of
Fallujah to the razing of Louvain (1914) or Dresden (1945). It will be
likely marked as the point where the US lost the war in Iraq, in its
hamhanded destructiveness. After Fallujah, the hearts & minds of Iraqis
were forever lost.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
01 Dec 2005 01:28:15 AM |
|
|
Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> writes:
This whole thread seems to have missed the point behind the Laws of
Land Warfare, which is meant to limit civilian casualties and
destruction of property, not to make warfare "nice"
Remember that this thread is being cross posted to several groups,
and some of us are not interested in warfare - I was simply pointing
out that people were overreaching in their attempt to classify any
particularly nasty weapon as a chemical weapon (which, as you point
out, ignores the question of what it actually does to people).
I was incensed at "Bear" because he seemed to be minimizing the
gruesome nature of WP munitions. That is a tough sell, and
unfortunately it now looks like I was right months ago when I compared
the destruction of Fallujah to the razing of Louvain (1914) or Dresden
(1945). It will be likely marked as the point where the US lost the
war in Iraq, in its hamhanded destructiveness. After Fallujah, the
hearts & minds of Iraqis were forever lost.
You should see what Moreen Dowd wrote recently about "Vice" (*****
Cheney) and his Torture Franchise - that's getting everyone pissed at
us as well, and with good reason. Aside from the human rights
violation, it is a singularly stupid policy: the easiest way to get
the other side to fight to the death is to get a reputation to the
effect that being captured by you is a fate worse than death.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beacon" |
|
| Title: Re: White phosphorus used in Iraq |
28 Nov 2005 02:23:58 PM |
|
|
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote in message
news:YYmdnSTLcOghxBbeRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
"Beacon" wrote
: Okay let me ask you then. Suppose white phosphorus is classified as an
: incendary, a flare a smoke agent even as a toothpaste if you want. So
what?
Then that is what it is!
: Mustard gas isnt classified as a weapon either or a whole host of other
: reagents which are in the protocol of the treaty. Indeed nuclear
materials
: are not weapons. It is when you put these materials into delivery
systeme
: e.g. "chemical mortars" and target them at people that they become
weapons.
Where do you get your information?
The same treaty. Look under thr protocol where it lists the mustard
reagents. do you want a reference?
Let me ask you.
Is Sarin a chemical weapon?
Is Soman a chemical weapon?
Is Toban a chemical weapon?
Is Anthrax a biological weapon?
Where is all you accuracy and classification now?
: Now Bear! So what what you call them?
Whatever the CWC classifies them.
But why do you think that the use of the phrase "chemical weapon" is so BAD?
And why do you assume that the CWC is the only authority on the subject otr
the only definition? do you accept that the Nurnberg laws classified jews as
lesser people? did that "classification" make it the truth?
: Why is it so significant to you?
Accuracy. How can we have truth without accuracy?
Did classifying jews and gypsies as lesser people make it true? Did
classifying blacks as slaves in the US make them lesser people?
*****! The US have reclassified "torture"! Torture does not include
anything which does not cause death or permanebnt physical damage. You think
that because of that "reclassification" that suddenly it becomes true that
anything else is not torture?
: I accept that your opinion is that WP is not classified as a chemical
weapon.
: so what?
So, that is accurate.
Your opinion is your opinion. It is based on ONE piece of supporting
evidence. That evidence is that WP is a precursor chemical. But so are other
chemicals. a bulet is not a weapon. when it is put in a delivery system and
shot at someone it becomes part of the weapon system. By the way Red
Phosphorus was developed after WWII because of the CHEMICAL threat of White
Phosphorus. Have you looked up what damage it does to the face and skin of
civilians? Funny how your "incendiary" does exactly the same damage as
CHEMICAL blister agents isnt it?
: The point is that the US invaded and occupied Iraq because of the
: immenent threat of Saddam using chemicals against them. As it happens
they
: are now using chemical weapons against Iraqui civilians.
No, the US is illegally using *incendiary weapons* against humans.
What is an "incendiary"? something that burns? You seem now to be saying
"they didnt use caustic agents on civilians they used flamethrowers". I mean
the whole idea is a bit like saying "we didnt use Cyclone A on the Jews it
was Cyclone B we used. It is inaccurate to call it Cyclone A".
: Have you seen what WP does to the faces of women and children? I bet you
do
: not get that on TV in the US.
That is irrelevant to the international classification of WP as an
incendiary weapon.
It is Cyclone B and if anyone else says your revisionist mentality is wrong
you will still stay in the Cyclone B rut won't you?
: So what? It doesn't change mustard gas into a weapon either until it is
put
: into a container and used as such. What is your big hang up about
: classification? whay is it important to you that the chemical put into a
: chemical weapon is not classified as a chemical weapon?
That is not accurate!
The Germans used Cyclone B but it is not accurate to say thay used chemical
weapons either. Nor is it accurate to say they fired it at jews since they
dropped in on them. What is your big hang up about the use of chemical
agents targeted at civilians? Why is it so important to say it is ONLY an
"incendary weapon"? So what?
: UIndeed they did! They used the chemical against civilians and
originally
: denied doing so but there is ample evidence they used it! Are you now
saying
: that they did not target and use WP on civilians?
You lack basic reading skills. The US illegally used WP *incendiary
weapons*
on civilians.
Which are recognised as causted chemicals chemical reagents and when
targeted as weapons against people ARE chemicals in weapons i.e. chemical
weapons. And incendiary is a chemical by the way.
: They ARE chemical weapons when the percursors are used in "chemical
: mortars".
I will continue to describe WP *accurately* as an incendiary weapon as it
is
internationally classified.
It is classified as a smoke and flare IF it is used correctly. Otherwise it
is a banned chemical when used as a weapon against people. and that is JUST
the CWC. There are other definitions.
: Ah! Now I see! You are afraid to admit that the US used chemicals
against
: civilians because it does not look good that they accused Saddam of
doing
it
: and then did it themselves anyway!
WRONG!!! I use terms accurately for truth's sake.
Is it true to say that the jews were classified as lesser people? You seem
so fond of the "truth" but you cant answer that simple question.
: Have you seen the effect of WP on the
: limbs and faces of women and children?
Irrelevant to how WP is internationally classified.
No it isnt! What is the reason for the International classification or for
ANY international treaty on chemical weapons? Your beaurocratic newspeak
misses the whole issue.
: It is hypocritical not to compare the
: incident in falluja with the Use of chemical weapons in Iraq before.
Only so far as both are illegal; not that both are chemical weapons.
(garbage snipped)
added back in:
Still trying to evade the questions and hide behind the "not a chemical
weapon therefore cant be as bad as what Saddam did" line?
The Us are working with muslim fundamentalists in Iraq, they are using
chemicals which chemically burn people alive. they invaded to prevent people
using such weapons. they say they also invaded to combat muslim
fundamentalists. The whole double standards and hypocracy is appalling. You
line that WP is "not a chemical weapon" just tries to ignores this big
picture of duplicity and double standards.
You can harp on your Cyclone B message all day like some Pentagon Colonel
staying "on message" but you are fooling nobody as regards why chemical
weapons are banned in the first place and how it is completly unacceptable
to use chemicals like White Phosphorus on civilians.
: > : You refuse to stand behind the
: > : military opinion you produced as evidence.
: >
: > What "military opinion" are you talking about? Are you sure that you
are
: > reading my posts?
:
: The person who stated that WP was not used on civilians.
Like I have said over and over and over. I do not dispute that WP
incendiary
weapons were used illegally against humans.
CIVILIANS? do you accept it was used on CIVILIANS?
However, I do dispute the
inaccurate labeling of WP as chemical weapons when that is not how they
are
internationally classified. It is dishonest to arbitrarily label something
as something else to further an agenda.
The agenda of showing US troops targeting CHEMICALS at CIVILIANS? that is
what they did!
: What is the signioficance of call them "incendiary" rather than
"chemical"?
: Please enlighten us all.
Ask the CWC!
the C in is for CHEMICAL! I don't see any I in there? and the CWC is only
ONE piece of evidence. Tell me then what is a chemical weapon?
: > Classification is not semantics; it is the authorized classification
of
: > weapons by the CWC. Quit being so ignorant.
:
: Do you accept that the Germans "classified" Jews as lesser people? If so
: then how can you accuse them of treating jews wrong? The
"classification"
of
: jews and gypsies made them different people. did that "classification"
stop
: them being people?
How were the Jews classified internationally?
The Us does not recognise international law. It only recognises positive law
and treaties that the US has signed up to. The death penalty is against
international law. the Us does not have the death penalty in some states but
they say that they will leave say the people of Texas decide what is for the
people of texas and it is not for the rest of the world or the US federal
gioovernment to interfere with the soverign state of Texas. Germany was a
soverign State that classified jews as lesser people. After WWII the Us said
that these "classifications" were wrong! according to what principle did the
US have a right to say this? Surely there then IS some sense of Universal
human rights which shows one when a "classification" is wrong? for example
classifying blacks as slaves jews andf gypsied as undermemchen torture as
not torture denial of due process as normal treatment and chemical weapons
used against womedn and children as "normal warfare using incendaries". You
can NOT clinicalise the use of White Phosphorus!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
