Bobby Hogg
New Member
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece
Looks like there were chemical weapons in Iraq after all.
Looks like there were chemical weapons in Iraq after all.
US forces 'used chemical weapons in Fallujah'
- Thread starter Bobby Hogg
- Start date
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Bobby Hogg said:
I hate to burst your bubble, but White Phosphorous grenades and shells are incendiary devices, and not a chemical weapon. They also are used in flares. You may now go back to US bashing, but remember...British forces used WP devices as well.
chcr
Too cute for words
Very unlikely, too embarrassing. Were there industries in Fallujah which might have used phosphorous? Were there munitions plants in Fallujah. Much more likely that conventional weapons exploded some kind of containers or such. That's assuming that it isn't a total fabrication.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
I wonder where he got his info...Perhaps those clouds are obstructing that view, as the road looks still intact, and buildings look like they are still standing...
unclehobart
New Member
Gunpowder is a chemical weapon as well I guess.
Bobby Hogg
New Member
Gato_Solo said:
It counts as a chemical weapon when it is being dumped on people and used to destroy them.
Also, napalm was mentioned in the article.
And as if I have any fucking love for the British army. I'm from Northern Ireland.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Bobby Hogg said:
No it isn't it's still classified as an incendiary. Just because you wish it to be something, it doesn't make it so...
BH said:
Yeah...once again...so?
1. It's a legal weapon.
2. It wasn't napalm.
BH said:
Which explains your rancor, but you missed the point.
unclehobart
New Member
There are lots of things that can be dropped upon someone in order to destroy. It doesn't automatically make them chemical weapons.Bobby Hogg said:
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
White phosphorous is a powder that burns whatever it touches and cannot be extinguished with water. It was used in Vietnam to flush out people from caves and holes...to kill people inside buildings etc...
Regardless of its primary use as an incindiery device (which makes it sound like something used solely on buildings)... it is frighteningly effective against humans. Much like napalm is a ground-clearing device but effective against people.
It is a chemical, it's delivery system in the form of grenade, bomb or shell makes it a chemical weapon.
Whether this was used or this is just a lie is another story entirely.
Regardless of its primary use as an incindiery device (which makes it sound like something used solely on buildings)... it is frighteningly effective against humans. Much like napalm is a ground-clearing device but effective against people.
It is a chemical, it's delivery system in the form of grenade, bomb or shell makes it a chemical weapon.
Whether this was used or this is just a lie is another story entirely.
catocom
Well-Known Member
There's also a difference in dropping something on insurgents/military, andHomeLAN said:
it does it's thing, and it's done, than.. Dropping something indiscriminately,
and to add the wind carrying it and killing non-militants(on purpose)
That's what the tree-huggers don't get. It's all the same to them.
No point in trying to argue it with them to me.
Bobby Hogg
New Member
Gato_Solo said:
It isn't being used as an incendiary if it isn't being combusted. Rather, it's being dumped on a civilian area and is dissolving people in their houses.
Gato_Solo said:
It's being used in an illegal way.
Gato_Solo said:
No I didn't. You obviously didn't have one. This was about the use of chemical weapons on a civilian area by US forces.
Bobby Hogg
New Member
catocom said:
Tell me, what exactly is the difference when the people are fucking dead either way? Instead of explaining it to "tree-huggers" how about explaining it to the relatives of those killed? I wonder if the difference will make them feel any better once you've explained it to them.
And this article is referring to white phosphorus being dumped on a civilian area, a place where civilians live.
Bobby Hogg
New Member
unclehobart said:
Well done you. Pat on the back there.
It's funny how the definition of "chemical weapon" can be spun and spun like everything else until it soothes your conscience (if you have one, that is).
Bobby Hogg
New Member
Try reading the rest of the article.
Whether I believe it or not is almost besides the point. No one here has really questioned the veracity, only justified the use of white phosphorus on civilian areas.
Whether I believe it or not is almost besides the point. No one here has really questioned the veracity, only justified the use of white phosphorus on civilian areas.
catocom
Well-Known Member
I read the whole thing...Bobby Hogg said:
Here's another part that's a dead give away man...
If it is true, there will be an investigation, and it would in-fact be horrendous.
I just don't believe whatever some terrorist want to put up on a website,
and if I were a responsible reporter/new org, I surly wouldn't put it up as fact.