From Pajama Jihad:
It seems that some bloke over in the U.K. wrote an article accusing U.S. troops of using chemical weapons in the battle of Fallujah and lefty bloggers here in the U.S. have run with it.
The “chemical weapon” in question is White Phosphorus – Willy Pete as it’s known in the military – is used in mortar and artillery shells. If the lefty bloggers are to believed, the explosion of White Phosphorous rounds causes the release of “a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits.” But what does it really do?
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the Health Department, “White phosphorus munitions are intended to burn or firebomb the opponents, in other words, to effectively produce widespread damage but not kill the enemy.”
Phosphorus is very good at burning. It reacts quickly with oxygen at room temperature and will continue to burn until either it or the oxygen has been completely consumed. The resulting chemical compound is phosphorus pentoxide, which is a toxic chemical. You can read the Material Safety Data Sheet here.
Phosphorus pentoxide reacts with water – like the water on the surface of body tissues – to form phosphoric acid. You can see the relevant health information on that here.
To summarize, the smoke from White Phosphorus munitions will cause irritation of the eyes, nose, throat and skin. Could it be fatal? Possibly if the exposure is prolonged enough, or if the victim has prior respiratory problems. Will it kill everything within a tenth of a mile? Heck no.
All of that information would have been available to anyone with access to google and a basic understanding of chemistry (because really, this was all pretty basic chemistry). I’d appreciate it if the demagogues on the left would do a little research before accusing our men and women in uniform of being the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein.
Well, we all would, I suspect – but don’t bet on that happening anytime soon. In fact, Pandagon’s JEdmunds—not cowed in the slightest by his earlier misstep—sallies forth again, this time making the point that sure, using WP may be technically legal. But it is nevertheless immoral, and it is on these grounds that he is leveling his complaint.
The point of outrage for JEdmunds—and Hunter at Daily Kos [and now Kos himself, who is beginning to walk back his earlier claims that US troops were using “chemical weapons”, a notion echoed, surprisingly, by Radley Balko]—seems to be that WP “melts” children, and in this sense is different from other munitions (which presumably kill with less heat and mess).
But is this really the case? Here’s Dorkafork in the comments to last night’s thread:
White phosphosphorus does NOT create some “lethal clouds of gas that can kill everyone within 150 meters in all directions” […] From FM 8-9, the NATO HANDBOOK ON THE MEDICAL ASPECTS OF NBC DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS AMedP-6(B) Sec. 814 b.:
WP may be used to produce a hot dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide which are converted by moist air to droplets of phosphoric acid. The smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. Field concentrations of the smoke are usually harmless although they may cause temporary irritation to the eyes, nose or throat.
Or maybe read this:
When RP (-ed. red phosphorus) is oxidized, it forms a mixture of phosphorus acids. When these acids are exposed to water vapor, they in turn form polyphosphoric acids, which may be responsible for the toxic injuries to the upper airways. Most of these injuries are mild irritations. No human deaths have been reported from exposure to either white phosphorous or RP smokes. (emphasis added)
which also contains this:
* Red phosphorus: Individuals with toxic inhalation usually have a history of exposure to the smoke either on the battlefield or in some other setting where phosphorus smokes are used.
o Complaints of eye, nose, and throat irritation are common.
o A severe exposure can be associated with an explosive persistent cough. If a person has come in contact with unoxidized phosphorus, chemical burns to the skin can cause pain and erythema.
o Most often the cough and irritating symptoms resolve after the individual is removed from the exposure source.
Again, what all this outrage boils down to—particularly this latest reluctant shift to the moral argument—is that many on the left believe the war is wrong and will seize on any opportunity they can to make the case. Sadly, many of their complaints misfire or are offered in bad faith.
This is one such case.
War is hell. And collateral civilian damage is always a tragedy. But what it is not is necessarily immoral. In fact, an argument can be made (and is made by the military) that use of WP can actually save lives by flushing out the enemy and making the use of less indiscriminate munitions unnecessary.
****
update: Dorkafork has his own post on all this over at INDC Journal, including a post devoted to legality of WP.
WP is used in fireworks displays too. I don’t recall any children melting last 4th of July.
Ugh. Yet another excuse to argue about the decision to go to war by sniping over everything but the decision to go to war. “You hate the war so much you’ll invent atrocities!” “You love the war so much you’ll ignore atrocities!” Forgive me if I beg off for this round.
Yes, you can blame all this on “THE EVERCHILDRENMELTINGNEOCONCHIMPMCBUSHLITER”
Maybe Karl too if you want to reach a little…..
Aw, shit. Google “us used chemical weapons” and see how far this has spread already.
Even when demonstrated to be false, the bell can’t be un-rung. Kos, and whomever else spouted this bullshit can die of gonorrhea and rot in hell.
Sorry, Jack Roy, but there is no cycle of violence here.
I’m simply trying to put to rest a pernicious and dishonest factoid that some anti-war bloggers are trying to help gain traction.
The fact is, this IS an invented atrocity. Just because people have engaged in these kinds of structural rhetorical battles before doesn’t mean we should ignore dangerous untruths. Already this non-story has been picked up and used as agitprop by our enemies.
Let’s assume for a mintute that WP does qualify as a “chemical weapon” (clearly it does not), would it then stand to reason that:
A) “Saddam = Bush” or “US = Baathist Iraq” or “we became the monsters” etc
B) That the military, Bush and hawks are hyocrites, since the threat of “chemical weapons” is why we invaded in the first place
C) That A and B mean the “War is Evil” or the like
The fascist US also cowardly targets children by using EVIL ASSALT RIFLES, which fire LEAD BULLETS.
The 5.56 bullet used by the US imperialists is known to blow the heads off people, which means it could be used to blow off the heads of children. Often the wounds of a 5.56 round are untreatable, which means their use is immoral and against human rights.
If you want, I can post some pictures of gun-shot victims to make you feel guilty.
Further the lead from the bullets can lead to lead poisioning.
Lastly, wasn’t it Saddam himself who used assalt weapons? Are we not just as bad? Didn’t the nazis invent assalt rifles too?
More proof that the US and Bush and the neocons are EVIL.
Yeah, but when the Nazis invented the assault rifle, it was a decently large 7.9mm round, not the 5.56mm poodleshooter.
Stupid Amerika, can’t even ape the Nazis correctly.
Obviously WP is a pretty wimpy chemical weapon. We need to start using second-hand tobacco smoke or ozone. Either can kill within seconds from a range of up to 20,000 miles. Now that’s some nasty shit!
“Chemical weapons deliverer” isn’t quite as pithy as “babykiller”, but you can pretty much bet returning vets are going to hear something like that. Thanks to people who don’t understand science or international law.
I was unaware that the italians were our enemies.
ROME—Italian television aired a documentary yesterday alleging that the United States had used white phosphorus shells ‘’in a massive and indiscriminate way” against civilians in the November 2004 offensive in the Iraqi town of Fallujah.
ALWAYS REMEMBER: Saddam’s mustard gas and nerve gas were NOT WMD’s for purposes of “Bush Lied” / “No WMD’s in Iraq,” but a standard WP munition becomes a WMD when used by the United States military.
No, but the Italian communists are.
Not all Italians are the same, Paul. Just as there can be black conservatives, there can be anti-war Italians.
Michael Moore, for instance, is an enemy—and he’s American.
I can’t say for certain whether the Italian TV documentarians are enemies or simply (as is the case with many “journalists”) presumptuous, senstationalistic, and sadly uninformed.
Thanks to this hub-bub I just threw away all the lentils, cornmeal and whole grains in my kitchen. They’re freaking chock full of deadly chemical phosphorus! I think maybe it’s a Bushhitler CIA plot to poison hippies.
Chicken munition sexperts?
Oh, gimme a break, Jeff. “Dangerous”? Dangerous means dangerous. Please excuse me if I’m not terrified that the people who already believe in the Protocols and hate us have one more false or misleading reason to hate us. A list with 2001 b.s. entries doesn’t seem remarkably more frightening than a list with 2000.
I know that its important to counter the lies of the anti-war left (see Vietnam War, end of) but does anyone else feel like a tool for meeting these smelly hippies on their terms, arguing something as asinine as this?
On the bright side: the most beautiful girl in the world.
Allah has already dubbed her “The Choosen One” over at Ace’s site and I see no reason to disagree.
Red blooded American men? Your day is officially over.
I’m not asking you to join in, Jack.
And yes, I believe that misinformation, allowed to spread unchecked, is dangerous.
Certainly we’re not looking to change the minds of the liars; but we are trying to set the record straight for those who maybe aren’t as involved in politics as we are.
Fred. I’d riot for her.
I’d even park my insured car in a “car-fire hot zone” for her.
I’m not sure what that means…
WP also comes in fun grenade form – a big, heavy sucker. The conventional wisdom on their use says that a normal human can toss one about 20 feet, but since the splash radius is around 30 feet, turning and running is highly advised…
At lunch to day with a friend who is ex-Soviet military (now a US citizen) brought up how sad it was that Bush used chemical weapons in Iraq. I told him it was the phosphorus shells he at first did not know what that was (his English is not the best) until I said smoke shells. A light came on and he understood what I was describing. He had the decency to be a touch embarrassed & agreed that those were not chemical weapons; he had thought something like mustard gas. We moved on and enjoyed our lunch.
My point is that it is worth it to point out these falsehoods as, at least in this case, the general lie was quite acceptable to his world view (Bush bad) thus falsely reinforcing that viewpoint (regardless if Bush really is ‘bad’ or not). If I had not read the various debunking of this particular charge in different blogs, I would have not been able to factually point out what was wrong with the false claim.
Score one for blogs.
This&That
So what you’re saying is the this “WMD” gas killer is actually safer than tear gas. Right?
[Except when it’s actually burning, of course]
1.7 Tons of Highly Enriched Uranium Removed From Iraq
The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.
“This operation was a major achievement,†said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.
He said it would keep “potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terroristsâ€Â.
Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 “highly radioactive sources†were also removed.
The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department’s secret laboratories.
(LINK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm)
What I don’t understand is, how does this all play into the Downing Street memo?
Maybe all of these “reality-based” folks ought to try actual reality instead.
:peter
“Yeah, that white phosphorus is really nasty stuff. Mix it with water, and you get phosphoric acid.”
“Phosphoric acid? Sounds nasty? What do they use it for?”
“Oh, you know, chemical weapons, soft drinks… here it is on this Diet Coke can, right after aspartame.”
According to moonbat logic, any weapon that produces a chemical reaction is a chemical weapon (equating to WMD). Willey Pete fits their definition.
Hammer strikes the primer. Pressure causes a chemical reaction. Primer heats the dry chemical powder. Burning powder expands. Excessive pressure forces the brass jacketed projectile from the chamber. Conventional guns are chemical weapons.
I drink Alka-Seltzer when I have a case of the ‘green apple splatters.’ A chemical reaction occurs to target my diarrhea……. GOOD GOD I’VE BEEN DRINKING WMDs! OHH THE HUMANITY!
I hate liberals.
What I find astonishing is even after accepting that WP is a legal, even unremarkable munition load used regularly in combat these guys still argue its deployment was criminal because it was used in a “city full of civilians” who COULD have been caught in its effects.
They’ll be demanding unilateral bans on grenades and shrapnel-producing munitions next. “White hot shards of metal! Flying indiscriminately through the air! At children!”
How disgusting that the neocon cabal is conveniently “forgetting” to mention the most important thing here: BABIES DIED FOR SOME REASON! All this quibbling is beside the point; BABIES DIED, so any and all hysterical rants about the subject are VALIDATED. You racist theocrats want to spit out your disinformation, talking about “heat radius,” “munitions,” and “facts?” A DOCUMENTARY SHOWED FOOTAGE OF MILITARY THINGS INTERCUT WITH FOOTAGE OF DEAD BABIES–THAT’S ALL I NEED TO KNOW TO CHARGE YOU WITH WAR CRIMES, PAUL WOLFOWITZ!!!!
Aspartame? I think you mean NutraSweet, the CHEMICAL WEAPON developed by Donald Rumsfeld, WHO ONCE SHOOK HANDS WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN!
Disgusting.
BECAUSE OF THE PHENYLKETONURICS!
BECAUSE OF THE PHENYLKETONURICS!
If you will google “Betty Martini”, you will find a zillion websites dedicated to the eradication of aspartame. Around 1997, Martini wrote a long, breathless letter, circulated on Usenet, claiming that aspartame causes lupus, MS, seizures, Gulf War syndrome, Alzheimers, “fibromyalgia symptoms, spasms, shooting pains, numbness in your legs, cramps, vertigo, dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, joint pain, depression, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, blurred vision, [and] memory loss”…stoats, goats, cats, bats, boars, bears, and DEATH. Her Usenet posts were even more crazed, saying any damn thing at all that she thought might scare people and get their attention. At one point I think she wrote that aspartame was classed as a narcotic.
This whole WP thing reminded me of that.
Melting babies…mmmmmmm. Is it dinnertime yet?
If we had killed each insurgent individually by lethal injection, it still wouldn’t matter to these dickheads. Yawn.
TW: face. As in, “The U.S. Military has been deliberately targeting innocent faces for sinister melting purposes…”
The fascist US also cowardly targets children by using EVIL ASSALT RIFLES, which fire LEAD BULLETS.
US tank-busting rounds use uranium. Iran’s (potential) nuclear bombs use uranium. Therefore the US cannot complain about Iran attempting to build nuclear bombs.
Or you could always try constructing a rational argument.
What I find astonishing is even after accepting that WP is a legal, even unremarkable munition load used regularly in combat these guys still argue its deployment was criminal because it was used in a “city full of civilians†who COULD have been caught in its effects.
Legal, due to the fact that the US hasn’t signed Protocol III of the Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons, technically and possibly. Unremarkable, when used as an anti-personnel rather than illumination round in cities full of civilians, no. And if you want to dispute that last comment, first show how the Italians faked the video, and then explain why this comment was made:
“WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out… We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions.”
It may not be “criminal” in the sense that no-one is in a position to enforce Nuremburg-style courts on the US. It does, however, demonstrate quite clearly the lie behind the US claims to be liberating Iraqis, to be a power for peace and stability, and to be the Good Guys.
And it will inspire more people to pick up rifles and start shooting US troops. Or to explode bombs in US cities.
I can’t understand why you are defending a procedure that makes you more hated, and therefore less safe.
Because if the motherfucker who hates me just got turned into charcoal, I am more safe. Do you chastise your freedom fighter buddies in Al-Queda for using incendiary bombs that piss the US off?
Because if the motherfucker who hates me just got turned into charcoal, I am more safe.
Which part of “civilian” do you have a problem understanding? Which part of “Fallujah is in Iraq, not the US” do you have a problem understanding?
Let me suggest a hypothetical. I think you’ll agree this is not impossible, and indeed to some respect probable.
An American somewhere is kidnapped by some Islamic terrorist group. Three days later a video is released.
This video shows the American securely hogtied. It then shows pictures of the civilians burned to death in Fallujah, and a voiceover thanks the Americans for pointing out that it is not against the law to burn people alive.
Gasoline is then poured over the American and set alight. The camera stays on the body as it screams and writhing, stops and turns into charcoal. Perhaps the captors will be creative and only use gasoline up to the waistline, so the captured American does not die quickly from seared lungs, but rather a slower death from shock, his or her voice box shattered by the screaming, killed in the end by the pain of his or her skin, flesh and bone seared away.
Imagine this hypothetical taking place. Would you be calling the kidnappers “barbaric”? Would you refer to them as “scum” or “animals”? Would you connect the dots, or would you fail to see any connection between the pictures from Fallujah and this video?
Assuming this event, I wonder whether you might have second thoughts about taking so much pride in defending an American right to burn civilians? I wonder if maybe, just maybe, you might reconsider your self-righteousness?
I doubt it though.
Oh, and given the Italian pictures, if I were (say) an Egyptian customs agent and I had reason to suspect that Al Qaeda were shipping some incidenary device into America, I might be that much more tempted to just look the other way and say nothing. Explain to me again how exactly burning civilians to death in Fallujah makes you safer.
Pho i/a/t/o Ro-
I guess I’m not seeing what your paragraph is saying that I’m supposed to be finding so convincing. Could you translate it to tell me how this says we carmelized their skin and burned their babies in their cribs?
Couldn’t using WP for lethal missions mean they used WP only when they were on a mission to kill the insurgents? Not that they used it only in a lethal way- ie, creating the mythical 150meter cloud of smoke?
The Italian pictures were a fraud, they are being exposed now just like the Rather documents.
And I know what a civilian is, do you? Because if you could convince your freedom fighting buddies to wear uniforms and stop hiding behind woman and children it would save alot more lives than banning WPs. I can’t help that you are backing a bunch of cowards.
You are right about one thing, it will suck if now they start immolating hostages instead of beheading them. There is even less chance of getting any media coverage of that.
As for your final point, I really doubt you need any more reasons to help someone attack this country, your allegiances are obvious.
Here is the basis of the disagreement. Phoenician supports terrorists and terrorism. Most of the rest of us don’t. Therefore Phoenician, in an effort to be convincing, is attmepting to help the terrorists any way possible, without actually admitting that support. Therefore any effort made, weapon used or step taken by Americans to oppose people who committ terrorist acts is a crime in Phoenician’s world. This argument is just that simple, and our side (those of us who don’t support terrorists and terrorism) have been very remiss in not labeling people like Phonician what they are…supporters of facism and terrorism.
Actually, Phoenician, how much effort or concern over someone else’s opinions should we have once it is shown those opinions are based in lies and profound ignorance?
If someone accuses me of being a witch, the proper response is not to burn my D&D collection; it’s to inform them that I am not a witch.
If they insist that I am a witch, I’m not foolish enough to keep trying to make them my friend.
Whatever you say, Falluja was a massacre.
Whatever you say, countless innocents in Falluja were killed by indiscriminate US fire.
Was this Iraqi baby’s face burned off by white phosphorous, by chemicals mixed with WP, by other weapons fired by US troops, or by fire started by WP that ignited her clothes or her house during the assault???
Let’s not pretend that you even care, OK?
This is what you rabid war-mongers shrug off as “collateral damage”.
The use of incendiary weapons like WP is probibited under a section of the Geneva Convention which the hypocritical, war-mad USA refuses to even sign.
You might not really care about this. You might shrug away the WMD lies, the massacres, whatever. But the rest of the world is watching. We see your hypocrisy. We do not believe your lies.
What are you really fighting for???
Why, to rid the world of brown people and help the Zionist cabal.
Don’t you read your own site, Gandhi?
Incidentally, remind me to show you some pics of Dresden sometime.
The Italian pictures were a fraud, they are being exposed now just like the Rather documents.
Cite?
Phoenician supports terrorists and terrorism.
Cite?
Actually, Phoenician, how much effort or concern over someone else’s opinions should we have once it is shown those opinions are based in lies and profound ignorance?
Well, I know I’m showing less and less with regards B Moe and corvan.
Glib, smirking, meaningless crap: the usual excuse for a valid argument at this site.
Tossers.
You’re welcome to go drop your bullshit agitprop elsewhere, then.
This isn’t a mandatory tolerance training course I’m running.
Phoenician, I don’t beed a cite. All I have to do is read your posts in this thread and in the last thread in which you posted. Anyone that reads what you have written can see it. You said that attacks on American soldiers was not terrorism. You said that there was no terrorism in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power. At the same time you haven’t made a single mention of the rape rooms or the mass graves.
By any account Falluja was a hot bed of terrorist activity, yet you pretend that all who perished within it, save for American soliders, were innocents. The American military allowed huge numbers of innocent to escape Fulluja before the fighting began, yet you have not one single kind word for American soldiers.
No, I don’t need a cite. Anyone on earth can see what you are about, all one has to do is listen to you. I’m just not willing to pretend that you are a godd, patriotic, but delusional America. I’m going to call you what you are, a terro-facist supporter. I don’t say it with any joy, and I hope one day you change your mind, but I’m not going to kid myself about your motives either. I wish you would be honest about them as well.
This one isn’t used byt pulling the pina nd throwing it. The fuse is significantly longer than an anti-personnel grenade. These are used to destry sensitive material and equipment. For instance, if I had to abandon my radio retransmission vehicle and couldnt take the radios with me, I’d place a WP grenade on top of the radios (and one on the engine block) and pull the pins. This will prevent the use of the radios or the truck against us.
This is from Wizbang, I don’t know the etiquette for a massive quote like this, if I should somehow link to it I am sorry, but this debunks the video quicker and better than any I have seen:
Evidently no lie is too stupid or too brazen for the Left.
You could try knowing something about the subject.
The uranium used in armor-piercing munitions and in armor itself is depleted uranium.
Depleted uranium is just that, depleted. This is not to say that it is not radioactive. It is, but the radioactivity of a given quantity of DU is less than a comparable volume of average soil (in which uranium and other radio active elements can be found).
Uranium, even depleted urnium is still a heavy metal and therefore it is still toxic. The health effects of this toxicity is similar to that of lead. It requires that amounts of the material be ingested into the body. There is current research that suggests that Uranium, when pulverized by such things as armor impacts and HE detonation, does not produce particles small enough to be retained in the body, so buildup to toxic levels in teh body would requrie continuous or frequent and repeated exposure to a source of pulverized urnaium particles.
Particles that also do not remain airborne long, further reducing the possibility of ingestion.
The primary means by which DU is lethal to humans is in the event that the humans in question are inside a vehicle that is struck by a DU armor-piercing muition. In which case the last problem to worry about is ingestion, or rather, ingestion by the normal means.
This is interesting.
As opposed to repeated showing the same picture of the same dead baby? Is that your idea of a valid argument you jackass? Interspersed with insightful commentary blaming Bush’s domestic policy and fucking mortgage rates for the Iraq war, or some shit? Because it looks like a cheap emotional play and a bunch of incoherent invective to me.
No. Legal even if Protocol I Additional-1977 (ther is no such thing as “Protocol III”) had been signed.
The punchline is that we do indeed abide by these provisions despite not expressly agreeing to.
There is one reason why we did nto agree to it. Bonus points if you can tell us why.
Point out any part that violates any provision of the Geneva Conventions.
<style courts on the US. It does, however, demonstrate quite clearly the lie behind the US claims to be liberating Iraqis, to be a power for peace and stability, and to be the Good Guys.</blockquote>
No. It is not criminal in the sense of not violating either the letter or the spirit of the Laws of Land Warfare.
I guarantee that this has not cause anyone who did not hate us already to hate us now.
Show me.
I blame your teachers and theirs as well as all parents involved for not enabling you or they to understand what the laws actually say and mean.
Jeff,
It is interesting. Interesting in the sense that is a form of warfare waged on civilization by the people who support anarchy, honor killings and religious totalitarianism. They can’t fight American soldiers on the battle field so they fight them in the press…with lies.
It is also the exact same tactic Phoenician uses.
Did I just read that? Tell me I didn’t just read that.
Did Gandhi just steal my material?
I <style, ‘cause if he did that piss-drinking pacifist would be running to hide under his sister’s bed <i>right now</i>.
[EDIT because the Internet hates me]
I *know* Gandhi didn’t just bite my style, because if he did that piss-drinking pacifist would be running to hide under his sister’s bed right now.
Corvan,
This is one statement (only one) he has made that is correct.
Violence against valid military targets (such as military personnel) is not terrorism, it’s warfare.
As to the rest, please, carry on.
Yet you keep coming back.
????
Not sure I completely agree, RTO. If it is by another recognized military force, then yes, that is war. But if it is by a recognized terrorist organization hiding amongst a civilian population I don’t think I can grant it the status of a military action. And for the record, if I had been a Nazi I would have considered the French resistance terrorists.
The whole problem with sarcasm is that is requires a tacit assumption that some things are simply too stupid to be meant seriously.
Remember how Tim Blair jokingly suggested that antiwar Brits should write to Midwest Americans to pursuade them to vote against Bush—and then the Guardian actually tried it?
I think the best post was the one in the last thread that said that 3 million rounds of WP were used in WWII.
The stuff is mundane to warfare.
Agiprop is exactly the term to describe these people, along with 5th collumn.
Phoenician,
Your problem is that we tend to literacy here, rather than pomo.
If you defend, excuse, and exculpate a particular person or group, and miss no opportunity to promote their cause as right and just, then that person or group is your ally. That’s what the word means.
Similarly, if you attack some group, meaning to hurt and defeat them and frustrate their ends, that group is your enemy. Again, that’s the meaning of the word.
And since you routinely and consistently defend, excuse, and exculpate the terrorists and bombers, and consistently promote them and their cause as right and just, they are your allies. The fact that they would spit on you is merely a sad commentary on your delusions.
Furthermore, since you are vigorously attacking American soldiers and Marines, doing your best to frustrate their efforts and defeat their ends, American military people are your enemies. Vapidly pious pronouncements that you “support the troops!” are simply lies, and transparent lies at that. Equally pious declarations that you are just trying to discourage them from inadvertently slipping into evil are equally false, and are understood as such by all present including the people you got the talking points from.
As for “… a procedure that makes you more hated, and therefore less safe”, that’s bullshit, and you either know it (and are again lying) or you don’t (and are therefore too stupid to deserve attention anyway). What’s absolutely certain is that the attack you are making and supporting will be (and already has been) picked up by your allies in support of their existing hate, and used as a weapon to kill more Americans. Including, as it happens, my son.
Fuck you and your Noble Steed with your Gleaming Sword of Justice. Clear enough?
As for “gandhi”, the gentleman whose name you have corrupted would spit in your face. You aren’t a pacifist. You’re an enabler of bullies, a promoter of mass murderers, and a chauvinist, elitist bigot, considering yourself too high class to take out your own garbage while reserving the right to sneer at those who do it for you as inferior beings. I urge you to go back to Kosland, where your fellow bigots can salve your ego by congratulating you on your essential goodness.
Regards,
Ric
TW: tax. This bullshit tends to tax my patience.
As a matter of opinion, feel free to disagree. I’m relating the legal reality, however.
Given that the OPFOR is irregular forces (insurgents, not formal military) the choice of target is the difference under international law and military regulation between terror aind guerilla warfare.
New talking point: PRETEND YOU CARE!
What a surprise. Those tolerant lefties at Pandagon have resorted to moderating the comments. Look for mine to disappear.
You said that attacks on American soldiers was not terrorism.
Quite true.
From Princeton:
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
You said that there was no terrorism in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power.
Nope. You’re a liar.
And on that note, have a good weekend, kiddies.
I’m a liar. That’s very rich, Phoenician. After having proclaimed American soldiers war criminals and defended terrorists from all comers, after all but proclaiming that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussien you’re calling other folks liars. After having made it perfectly clear you would relegate the people of Iraq to the control of Baaathists and Al Qaeda you’re going to call other people names? I can only assume you have neither conscience nor shame.
Fuck you.
Hmmm.
What I think is funny:
1. The end product of White Phosphorus is phosphoric acid, which is commonly used in Coke-a-Cola.
2. Didn’t the Marines wait a month while civilians were allowed to leave Fallujah?
3. The LLL have gone so far around the bend that they’re approaching insanity from the point of idiocy.
sw: “english” as in: If you put enough english on a story, it might be true!
Hmmmm.
@ Phoencian
The problem with your idiotic example is that muslims have *ALREADY* burned Americans alive with gasoline. Remember the four contractors hung from the bridge? One of them was captured alive, hog-tied, doused in gasoline and then burned alive.
You asshat.
Hmmm.
@ Phoencian
You’re still an asshat, but I have to thank you for one thing. You’ve provided the perfect argument for using any tactic, however brutal, against muslims.
Your logic dictates that whatever one side does is then allowed for the other. The act, however accidental or incidental, frees the other side to act in a similar way.
Thus the supposed, and frankly stupid, example of a burned family in Fallujah would then allow terrorists to burn Americans alive. Yet since muslims were the first ones to burn an American alive, and not a soldier either but a civilian contractor, then all American forces are now free to burn any and all muslims alive at any time it’s convenient.
Additionally since muslims have kidnapped, shot, strangled, stabbed, burned, raped, blown up, maimed and tortured Americans, this means that all such activities on the part of Americans are now sacrosanct.
Which means that either your argument is completely full of shit, or you’ve got nothing to complain about.
sigh. Another 1.25 minutes wasted on another blog troll fruitcake.
Hmmm.
@ Phoencian a ka “Asshat”
From Dictionary.com”
From Merriam-Webster Online:
Followed by a definiton of “terror” in the Merriam -Webster Online:
You asshat.
Please don’t feed the trolls. It makes them soggy and hard to light.
Jeff,
Willie Pete comes in hand grenade form as well. Which is interesting because chances are you can’t throw one far enough to outrun it’s 5 second fuze without being caught in a “poison cloud” ostensibly.
That said, if you manage to splatter the enemy with the shit, it will act like blood from the creatures on the Alien movie series. The shit will burn right through you and water will not put it out.
It’s a wonderful thing.
As for increasing the level of hate for Americans among certain groups, I’d like to say that the Shiites and Kurds probably aren’t all that exercised by this bullshit story.
For a group of people who accuse us Righties of sheeplike adherence to propaganda, they sure do put a lot of faith in professionally filmed and edited videotape. Like THAT could never be faked or decontextualized or truncated.
cite: Michael Moore’s entire canon, this easily debunked RAI package, those reopen-the-9/11-investigation paranoiafests, etc. etc.
Yep, the M15 WP grenade weighs about two pounds. If you can’t throw two pounds more than twenty feet, maybe you’ve thrown too many of these.
Liars. I thought this thing incinerated everything within 150m.
Just babies, kittens and fawns.
As Archie Bunker once said about the link between murder victims and handguns, “Would you be happier if they was pushed out windows?”
War is the failure of diplomacy. I concede. I’m tired of talking.
This is an open invitation to meet Phoenician and Gandhi at the bike-rack after school. I’ll be by myself. I’ll take off my watch and rings. I haven’t had a work out today.
You both can leave your butt-plugs in or sans butt-plugs. It’s no difference to me. Also no hair pulling.
You may want to share this with your readers. This is not a professional work, but just an informal analysis.
I had this conversation yesterday regarding this news story about WP being used as a chemical weapon.
I am a former fire support officer, who was trained to travel with infantry and armor units and be the eyes of the artillery to call for fire.
I read the article from the Italian news source, and let me state unequivocally that what it claims is physically impossible. A white phosphorous round used for illumination is a base ejecting projectile that “opens” in the air and floats down under a parachute. The projectile casing does continue down range, but fire direction officers and fire support officers along with the maneuver commanders clear this impact area as part of the calculations. The projectile casing itself could kill a person, as any bullet would, but it is not possible to use it as a chemical warfare attack.
The flare itself floats down and you would pretty much have to chase after it and position yourself under where you project it will land to even get burned. It is possible although very unlikely that this flare could hit a building and could cause a fire, but the injury wouldn’t be a chemical burn, but a burn from the building fire. I have never seen anything close to this happen.
The flares come down slowly and usually burn out first, but since they are the brightest thing in the sky, it would be easy to avoid one if it landed while burning. I have seen a few flares land on the ground while burning, but this is much different than a chemical attack.
The only way you could purposely harm anyone with this is if you direct fired at a short range. The projectile most likely wouldn’t eject the flare (it has a timed fuse) and it really wouldn’t matter if you fired Cheetohs at someone at that range, the concussion would kill them.
An artillery unit wouldn’t use direct fire unless it was being attacked. And even then it would use their organic direct fire weapons and if necessary, another type of projectile. To use a WP for direct fire would be entirely counterproductive to the security of the battery even in self defense.
This Italian news story is nothing but a lie.
After being asked repeatedly to analyze the “Italian News Story†(gag), I analyzed the video, here are my thoughts
I analyzed the video and am pleased to announce that it is junk. There are many things I could point out, but here is what sticks out.
1. The fire raining down from the helicopter was the part that concerned me. I had to watch it repeatedly to figure it out. It is the back blast from a missile being fired the other direction. Those are harmless, tiny incendiary particles that looked like balls of fire. They are basically burning propellant. This is because it is night and it is hard to get perspective at night, with or without night vision equipment. Taken out of context, it is easy to make it look like fire raining down on the city.
2. The voice over states “contrary to the claim by the state department that WP was used in open fields, this was not true because tracer rounds were used to illuminate the enemy” Nothing could have spelled out liar any bigger than that one statement. Tracy rounds are never used to illuminate the enemy. The glow from a tracer round lasts tenths of a second and travels hundreds of miles an hour; it could not possibly be used for this function, again a claim that defies all practicality. Tracer rounds are used to see where your bullets are going so your fire can be adjusted, flat out. And quoting the State Department about a military function?
3. The pictures of dead bodies while hideous provide no analytical value. Contrast the opening from Vietnam, with the burned little girl, running from a napalmed village. That is conclusive evidence. Nothing about these dead bodies looked any different to the many dead bodies I have seen analyzing other videos (of dead bodies) that were all made that way (dead) by Saddam’s regime and then by Jihadists. There is no way to determine what killed these people by looking at pictures, except maybe by a forensics expert.
4. The soldiers, this is more complicated:
I find the taller guy, I think his name was Garret, credible. His story rang true and is tragically repeated. But this is not a war crime or a chemical attack, but bad target identification and a complete human tragedy, assuming the “civilians” were indeed non combatants, it is very hard for the soldiers to tell. Although I do question his motives that is irrelevant to this analysis since he provides no “evidence†of chemical weapons.
The other guy Jeff was a liar, to the point I would need to see his orders to believe he was in Iraq. He states, (paraphrasing) “the orders unequivocally came from the pentagon to wait until after the election”.
How does he know this? Was he CENTCOM commander at the time? Did the CENTCOM commander call him up and tell him that? Even if it was true, that fact in itself is not nefarious.
The re-election of Bush would be a crushing blow to the Jihadists in Fallujah, and let me tell you, I have seen their own videos recovered from there and the place was crawling with them. It would make tactical sense to wait, if you were pretty confident that Bush would win. They call this tactical patience.
Also, the timing of the attack was heavily influenced by the Iraqi Provisional Authority. The U.S. had just helped them form and wanted to get them involved with running their country as soon as possible. That is why the first battle of Fallujah was ended, because the new Iraqi government wanted more time to talk with the Jihadists. That is until the new Iraqi government officials figured out that they were now the primary target of the Jihadists and told the U.S. effectively, go get them (the Jihadists in Fallujah) as soon as you can.
Jeff states (paraphrasing), that the U.S. was using chemical weapons because we used WP. Hogwash. The video itself showed the flares floating slowly to the ground and the ground itself gave perspective. Now I am not saying I would want WP on my skin, but I wouldn’t want Drano on my skin either and I am not declaring chemical warfare on my home. Now a person could make the argument that you could take that Drano and throw it on your neighbor and that would be a chemical attack. True, but, you can not spew WP from a deployed flare because if it is burning, it is burning the WP. You wouldn’t want to put your mouth over it, of course, and you wouldn’t want to purposely hold it to your skin, but you would have to go out of the way to hurt yourself with a flare.
c. He states (paraphrasing) when they used the stuff (WP) they would come over the net and say the WP is coming or “bombs away” or something.
Bombs away? Who was on the net giving this sitrep, Clark Gable? That’s about the last time anybody used this term. This guy is a clown. And notice he makes claims and then says, oh, I didn’t see it, but I heard about it. Come on….dude.
5. The real tip off about the credibility of this “news story†is the pictures of dead animals.
The voice over said, paraphrasing: that several animals were found dead with no visible sign of trauma.
First off, did they examine the animals? If so, they didn’t show it. Sure something is not visible, if you don’t look! Animals die everyday from natural causes, hunger, disease, or even getting hit by cars or possibly by conventional weapons.
And get this, they show people who appear burned and claim this to be a sign of a chemical weapon, then they show animals with no injuries in the context of this discussion to imply they died of a mysterious chemical weapon. Their “facts†not only fail to support each other, but they directly conflict with each other. Yet they choose to throw them at the viewer with full understanding of the emotional impact of these images.
6. A human rights group based in Fallujah? For crying out loud, that was Saddam’s power base. That is were the people burned four contractors and hung them from a bridge.
By introducing these “facts†in the context of a chemical weapons discussion, yet not having any supporting evidence, I can only conclude that not only are these charges false, but this was done with the documentary creator’s full knowledge that they were baseless charges. In other words, they purposely lied, which goes to their credibility.
After I wrote this, I was informed of more “supporting evidence†linked on the http://www.Dailykos.com:
“”WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”
—Field Artillery Magazine, via Steven D
My analysis:
I don’t mean to speak for the author, but this is evident
“”WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition.”
Very true and widely known among redlegs (artillerymen). Nothing interesting here.
“We used it for screening missions at two breeches …”
The kind of projectile they are speaking about here creates smoke. It is widely, commonly, and legally used by every army to conceal their men. Usually, if an obstacle needs to be breeched, the smoke is delivered by artillery in between the obstacle and the enemy observer. It can also be placed on the enemy to confuse and scare them. The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it.
“and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE.”
Notice he said psychological weapon and not chemical weapon. This is because the smoke would confuse the enemy and conceal our movements and would indeed, scare them.
“We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents”
A poor choice of phrasing because it is not technically accurate and does give the wrong impression, but this is a soldier and not a politician or a marketing strategist. (After further consideration, I think if the reference is to the projectile itself and not to the effect on flesh, it could be accurate. The HE would shake the ground and the material that creates smoke does so by burning (baking) but you would pretty much have to try to set yourself on fire by rolling around in it.)
“using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”
This takes a little bit of imagination. Imagine you are in a fighting position and the enemy is dropping smoke near your position. You ask yourself “why are they dropping smoke here?” the answer “because they are coming right through here.” So, you haul butt out of your defensive position and expose yourself to HE.
This statement has absolutely nothing to do with the “dual use†of smoke (WP) as a chemical weapon. It is stating that WP can have a psychological effect as well as a tactical use. That is the only “dual use†here.
-Ray Robison is a Sr. Military Operations Research Analyst with Scientific Applications International Corporation at the Aviation and Missile, Research, Development, Engineering Command in Huntsville Alabama. His background includes over ten years of military service as an officer and enlisted soldier in the Medical Branch, Field Artillery and Signal Corp including the Gulf War and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with the Iraqi Survey Group.
This statement has absolutely nothing to do with the “dual use†of smoke (WP) as a chemical weapon. It is stating that WP can have a psychological effect as well as a tactical use. That is the only “dual use†here.
Interesting. See here:
“The Iraqis responded with poorly aimed direct and indirect fires. The 105mm howitzers and 120mm mortars set up and were firing onto the artillery and tank positions. The 105mm howitzers fired more than 50 rounds from their two cannons in support of the operation. The 60mm mortar sections emplaced traversing fire onto the Iraqi trench line and observation posts. The Iraqis in one observation post attempted to flee but were fixed with white phosphorus fires. As they attempted to flee again, white phosphorus rounds impacted the vehicle and set it on fire. The section continued to fire a mix of high explosive and white phosphorus rounds into the objective area. The section fired more than 80 rounds in support of the mission.”
<objective area. The section fired more than 80 rounds in support of the mission.†</blockquote>
???
What do you find that’s supportive of your argument in here?