US officals confirms that white phosporus as a weapon

[Glirk Dient]

Stern...I think your mixing things up here. First off, grenades are a chemical weapon...guns can be considered a chemical weapon. Bombs are chemical weapons. Granted, that is not what people think of as chemical weapons, but they are. WP is a chemical weapon following that sense. Everything we use is a chemical weapon for the most part. The difference between the illegal ones is that WP is not a weapon of mass destruction. It is used (mostly) to destroy documents, machinery or anything top secret fast. It is sometimes used to kill enemy troops and very rarely a civilian will be caught up in the mess because the insurgents use the civilians houses and purposely put them in danger.

IMO WP is no worse than a regular grenade or even a bullet. WP doesnt go through walls an hit innocent people, same with shrapnel. WP is easier to control, the civilians that died from WP would have died if a regular grenade was thrown in, except they would sit there longer as the searing hot metal fragments burn their flesh and they eventually bleed to death or if their lucky they die fast if the grenade does enough damage.

WP burns quickly, that is why its used and handed out to people who work with top secret documents or machinery or anything that would need to be destroyed fast if enemies burst in to steal it. So it is not like they die slowly from this stuff.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

why would i try and prove anything to you? youre the kind of person who wants to coddle and relate to these denizens who would kill you in a heartbeat. the horrifying thing is that you, like the rest of the world, wouldnt raise a finger if these mongerals were raping your family in front of you. keep trying to rationalize with them and it will get you nowhere.

Oh, so that's what it's like inside your head. Who would have guessed?

So, in your opinion:
Killing terrorists with less inhumanity + caring about civilians = absolutist pacifism.

You are thinking in black and white terms again.
How many times have people asked you to stop doing that?

I'm following the golden rule of your bible, believe it or not. If I were fighting in a war, i would rather die of a bullet to the head then of having my flesh burn off for a few minutes.
So were I soldier confronted by a terrorist I would act better than a terrorist.
The point of the entire war on terror is that we are not like terrorists. Blurring that line undermines the whole affair.

Your no-limits approach can only lead to escalation.
They chop off heads, you burn their skin off while they are alive. They attack new york again, you nuke their citizens. Did we learn nothing from the cold war?

Frankly, you are saying things exactly as we all assume a terrorist would.
-You would kill countless civilians just to hit your enemies.
-You hold an abstract and dehumanizing view of your political opponents.
-You would use nuclear / chemical / biological weapons without second thought.
-You are extremely nationalistic, to the point that people of other nations are considered naturally inferior to you.
-You claim to be the most moral faction, but also elaborate on your lack of ethical limitations.
-You claim that you are a friend to civilians while simultaneously not caring about their lives.
etc.

what difference does that make? as though youre more qualified to speak. i said if it makes our soldiers jobs easier why in the hell shouldnt we use it?

The thread is about ethics in moden warfare.
You claim to have no ethical limitations, correct?
or, at least, you claim you would nuke an entire third of a continent just to stop terrorism.

Very few people would make that claim. Most people would call that a genocide. This makes you an abnormality.
I am positing that your abnormality is the result of a lack of contact with the real world.

Unless you have a better explanation for this abnormality?

As for my qualifications, I say acting like a terrorist is bad. Most people would agree with me on that, seeing as how your style of 'acting like a terrorist' caused 9/11 when actual terrorists attempted it. Most people call those who act as you propose cowardly and downright evil. Most people would not see them as strategic role-models to be emulated.
So I think that makes me fully qualified as fitting society's definition of normal, wheras you are talking like a criminal would. Literally. You are openly stating your desire to commit various warcrimes.
Thus, I feel I have every right to criticise you.


You want to make a soldier's job easier, huh? A soldier's job is just as much peacekeeping as it is killing.
By imagining your troops as purely killing machines, you are nullifying half their purpose; the part that needs morals to work. By ignoring half a soldier's job, you are undermining their entire job. It's about winning, and sometimes having a higher killcount doesn't help you win.
Half this conflict is ideology, and ignoring that half of the process is failure. By presenting your ideology as 'just as bad', how are you going to get supporters?
How are you going to get allies?
You can't possibly kill every terrorist, so obviously sloppy, painful (but easy) death should not be a key concern. Rather, it should be a balance of force and maintaining a desirable image. Hence my 'golden rule' stance of minimizing assholishness but still doing the job.

i'm glad people like you arent in charge of the military or we wouldnt win ANY battles. was it quick and painless when the terrorists lopped off all those peoples heads? we arent fighting civilized people, i see no point in rising above their barbarity. WP is a tool. no worse than bullets, a huge knife, or a 1000lb laser guided bomb going up some shitbirds nose.

So instead you support the current military hierarchy which has failed most of the Iraq war, which you are now eager to pull out of? Even with your phosphor bombs, the war is no closer to an end. But look at all the outrage they have generated! Certainly terrorist recruiters are using news of your phosphor bombs as fuel for additional hatred as we speak.

The war that used many of your sort of amoral and/or 'easy' techniques instead of more precision strategy consequently failed at basically all its core objectives, save for the installation of a democracy which is currently only barely propped up.

If I really were leading the fight against terrorism, I would not strive to be like a terrorist. Especially since those aspects of the Iraq war, from the coalition, that most resemble terrorism are also its biggest failures.
Call me crazy, but I don't want to be Osama Bin Laden: North-American Edition.

I'll just ride about on a horse lopping off people's heads, desperate to keep my immorality quota higher than the latest terrorist atrocity.

I am sorry if i sound passionate here, but over the course of my study of the War on Terror, I have grown to loathe terrorists with their terrible pseudo-rationalizations of their blatant inhumanity towards other people. Their weak "we act exactly as inhumane as the infidels, but it's okay for us because we are 'good' and they are 'not good'" philosophy.

After learning so much about that evil, I am just dumbfounded that a person claiming to be on my side is acting so similar.

If you don't give a shit about the well-being of other countries' citizens, how can you expect them to care if our towers crumble again?
Who will be your coalition in the next war?
And how can you expect them to grow up respecting you enough not to wish us dead?
By openly embracing barbarism, you are doing a disservice to yourself and to the entire civilized world.

So when you so openly toss away rational thought and long-term planning in exchange for a bigger gun, what am I to call you other than immature?

 

[DeusExMachina]

Fine post Mecha, damn fine post.

 

[Tr0n]

I love how mecha owns people like that.

 

[Flyingdebris]

woah woah woah woah. Stop.

you are off tangent, mecha.

This thread is currently about whether WP should be banned as a chem weapon or not. Or at least thats my understanding. Nobody here is talking about using it indiscriminately and willy peteing down bus-loads of civilians with it. Nobody is talking about nuking anything. This thread is not about whether the war is legitimate or not, its not about whether we should pull out of iraq or anything like that. There are plenty of threads for that.

THIS thread is about WP and that the USA has used it.


Back on the subject of WP. So what is all this ruckus about the US soldiers using a weapon that causes pain and injury. Last time i checked, thats what weapons do. In real life a battlefield does not consist of 2 groups of people euthanizing each other painlessly with the exception of mean ole willy pete burning thae shit out of someone. In a battle there are infinitely horrible ways to die. As civilized nations we've cut back on some of the more ghastly or overeffective means of killing each other. But war is still a dirty painful thing, thats just something you have to accept. And WP although bad, is not the end all be all of nasty weapons.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think I was suitably on-topic. Although I did dip into those other subjects to prove my point, the overall theme of what I wrote is that WP is just another example of the awful PR image that America is making for itself through what can best be described as borderline war-criminalism.

Definition of 'chemical' or 'not chemical' isn't really as important as the effects of the device (which are very similar to banned non-chemical napalms and flamethrowers) and they way they are percieved by the world at large (as barbaric and excessive).
Chemical weapons are outlawed for more than just their name, you know.

At the same time, I don't really see any tactical advantage to slow, painful death. Let alone one which the enemy would propagandize into fuel for more attacks. That is more of a disadvantage than anything.

Just being technical about contract wording it isn't going to convince people like ghost that they are wrong. As he said, he doesn't give 'a shit' about geneva conventions and whatnot, as long as he can kill terrorists.
So you have to show the tactical flaws of being a barbarian; and the fact is that bullets might be painful, but they are accurate, quick and, most importantly, not considered to be as cruel or excessive a force. They are standard.

So you've got to relate it in concrete terms that are easy to understand. In terms of the victory, failure, success and death.
ghost will support anything, after all, as long as it wins.
So I am making it very clear to him that his tactics are loser's tactics.

 

[Glirk Dient]

I think I was suitably on-topic. Although I did dip into those other subjects to prove my point, the overall theme of what I wrote is that WP is just another example of the awful PR image that America is making for itself through what can best be described as borderline war-criminalism.

Definition of 'chemical' or 'not chemical' isn't really as important as the effects of the device (which are very similar to banned non-chemical napalms and flamethrowers) and they way they are percieved by the world at large (as barbaric and excessive).
Chemical weapons are outlawed for more than just their name, you know.

At the same time, I don't really see any tactical advantage to slow, painful death. Let alone one which the enemy would propagandize into fuel for more attacks. That is more of a disadvantage than anything.

Just being technical about contract wording it isn't going to convince people like ghost that they are wrong. As he said, he doesn't give 'a shit' about geneva conventions and whatnot, as long as he can kill terrorists.
So you have to show the tactical flaws of being a barbarian; and the fact is that bullets might be painful, but they are accurate, quick and, most importantly, not considered to be as cruel or excessive a force. They are standard.

So you've got to relate it in concrete terms that are easy to understand. In terms of the victory, failure, success and death.
ghost will support anything, after all, as long as it wins.
So I am making it very clear to him that his tactics are loser's tactics.

Let's compare the cruelty of WP to other modern day weapons.

The bullet. Yes it is accurate, and it also travels through many walls and doesn't care what it hits. Even if it misses the intended target it will travel through walls and hit a kid in the stomach. Quick death you say? Stomach wounds can take days until you are dead...and it is far from painless.

Knife. This is a painful weapon. It takes a long time to die from since you most likely will bleed to death from many many cuts and stabs. I would say this is a barbaric weapon vs a "chemical" that kills in a minute or so.

Grenade. This weapon is one of the worst. When it blows up it shoot shrapnel up and out. This shrapnel will imbed itself into your skin. The shrapnel is very very hot and will burn your wound causing agonizing pain. You might have to cut the shrapnel out of your skin if you can bring about enough sense to do that.

Lets look at WP now. When it explodes it stays in that room. Meaning it wont go through walls and hit people not intended. It also changes chemical form very rapidly when it hits the air so it becomes harmless if your not in the room when it explodes(or soon after). It is an effective weapon as it kills the target . I don't see what is so bad about WP. Sure it isn't an instant kill but it does not take days to kill like some of the other weapons.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The key difference of all those to White Phosphorous is that those are not designed to cause extensive burns. That burning quality is considered inhumane by most of the world. Napalm and the rest are banned for a reason, you know.

It's not about only level of pain, because people often tend to survive injuries.

So do we want the survivors with a simple treatable gunshot, or left with the need of skin grafts on third-degree burns?
Dead is dead. It's the survivors that matter.
Bullets are more humane because, although painful, they are relatively easy to treat. Same with shrapnel, knife wounds, etc.
Burns, on the other hand, are painful AND extremely difficut to treat. This is why most hospitals have burn wards directly devoted to the task. They require extensive therapy, surgery. Even if the person does survive, there's the disfigurement.
Weapons of immolation are like radiological biological weapons in that they are indifferent to survivors.
The fact that so few people have even mentioned survivors kind of proves my point about how easy it is to abstract these things.
It's more than just kill ratios, and all pain is decidedly not the same.

Why do I feel like I'm constantly stating the obvious in politics?

I'm not stupid, and I know that being shot is painful, but using that as an excuse to immolate people is unconscionable.

 

[Flyingdebris]

actually, flamethrowers are not so much banned as much they are just no longer used. The primary reason flamethrowers aren't really fielded anymore is not because of their horrible burny nature, but because of their short range and technical limitations. They aren't really worth fielding since trench warfare and scorched earth tactics are out of style.

So banning WP on the grounds that flamethrowers are banned too doesn't really make much sense. Furthermore saying that we shouldn't use WP because it makes the US look barbaric doesn't make much sense either since i'm fairly sure most modern militaries use it.

as for being inhumane burny and nasty, yes, yes it is. That is the reason militaries use it. People might not be afraid of bullets, but they are afraid of fire.

Banning it cause it sucks to have scars and be in a burn ward doesn't really constitute a major enough reason not to use it for most militaries.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I had read that they were banned for being inhumane, which is true. I was just under the impression that it was international, rather than self-imposed. Sorry for any confusion.

Flamethrowers have not been part of the US military since 1978, when the Department of Defense unilaterally decided to end their use, out of concerns that the public found such weapons inhumane (although fire-based weapons are not banned under international law).

"That is the reason militaries use it. People might not be afraid of bullets, but they are afraid of fire."
That's a rather crude stance to take.
'Inhumanity is good because it make the world afraid of us.'
Since when is terrorizing your enemies into submission a valid strategy?
It certainly didn't work that way for the terrorists after the attacks on America. last i checked, no-one said 'oh no let's follow all their demands and live in fear'.

Again, people seem to have no concept of reprisal.

And AGAIN with the 'everyone else is doing it, so we can too' excuse.

Of the 89 signatory nations of the of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, how many really ignored Protocol III?

And what's this "aw boo-hoo scars" approach? Jesus, listen to yourself.
I repeat again, it's very easy talk like a hardass on the internet. Just watch me:

"Hey, 'boo-hoo, nuclear weapons cause cancer wah wah wah' suck it up, bullets hurt too. It's war, jerks. It's life and death. If I had half a chance I would gut a jihady asshole and then rub my ass in his entrails. No mercy. NO MERCY. They behead people, didn't you know?
They aren't human. Let's burn them to death. Survivors? Who cares? 'Oh there is no treatement for my extensive open sores and wounds where flesh is burnt away. Boo-hoo.' Get over it, you go in a hospital and you're good as new. Permanently losing much of your skin is no different than being shot in the shoulder. Jeeze, what a pussy."

 

[Absinthe]

God, I love Mecha.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Scare them into submission? That would be much much better than running in there and killing them all. Less deaths is ALWAYS a good thing. I am not saying we should use barbaric methods to cause that fear...but if we scared them(maybe by our size/skill instead of something like WP) then that would be great. It would also have a psychiological effect for those who didnt surrender they wouldn't fight as good. Anyways...just had to clear that bit up.

WP can be considered barbaric but so can any means we use to kill. WP gets the job done. There are worse things we use...gas bombs for instance burn everything and being burnt is a lot easier to survive than WP so theres more of a chance of people suffering/slow death and having dimemberment. So really what I am saying is why not complain about things like that. Why target WP? You are basically complaining that WP kills and its a chemical therefore its illegal. Gas is a chemical too. WP is far from one of those chemical weapons that could cause massive death/chaos and that is why its not banned. I could go on...but this debate is boiling down to a redundant level.

 

[Maxi]

People like Ghost and Icarusintel are the reasons why the world hates america. Untill you guys can understand what the hell you're talking about, and come to your senses I have to agree with cpt. Stern. You will face many new 9/11 in the future. Iraq aren't terrorists. Terrorists are extremists who belive they are fighting a holy war against someone that have caused them great harm. They are all manipulated by their leaders. Fighting a war against a country won't stop terrorism. Terrorist don't have countries. Your "war on terrorism is like throwing gasoline on a fire. It won't put it out, only make it burn harder and faster.

 

[Glirk Dient]

People like Ghost and Icarusintel are the reasons why the world hates america. Untill you guys can understand what the hell you're talking about, and come to your senses I have to agree with cpt. Stern. You will face many new 9/11 in the future. Iraq aren't terrorists. Terrorists are extremists who belive they are fighting a holy war against someone that have caused them great harm. They are all manipulated by their leaders. Fighting a war against a country won't stop terrorism. Terrorist don't have countries. Your "war on terrorism is like throwing gasoline on a fire. It won't put it out, only make it burn harder and faster.

They hated us before 9/11 and wanted us all dead. In fact they won't stop until we are all dead. How do you deal with an enemy that hates you so much they will kill themselves in order to erradicate every last one of you...man women and children? Talk them out of it? Nope...we went on their holy ground and theres no turning that back. Strike at the places that arms them, houses them and leads them? Sounds a lot better than sitting on our hands while they kill all of us.

 

[Bait]

They hated us before 9/11 and wanted us all dead. In fact they won't stop until we are all dead. How do you deal with an enemy that hates you so much they will kill themselves in order to erradicate every last one of you...man women and children? Talk them out of it? Nope...we went on their holy ground and theres no turning that back. Strike at the places that arms them, houses them and leads them? Sounds a lot better than sitting on our hands while they kill all of us.

I bet that is exactly what anyone who wants to attack America is thinking about you.

 

[baxter]

They hated us before 9/11 and wanted us all dead. In fact they won't stop until we are all dead. How do you deal with an enemy that hates you so much they will kill themselves in order to erradicate every last one of you...man women and children? Talk them out of it? Nope...we went on their holy ground and theres no turning that back. Strike at the places that arms them, houses them and leads them? Sounds a lot better than sitting on our hands while they kill all of us.

Ever wondered why?

 

[Glirk Dient]

Ever wondered why?

No...stop trying to attack me by saying terrorists hate us because we hate terrorists and want to defend our county. They hate us because we stepped on their holy land in the gulf war. They pledged a holy war then and they wouldn't stop until every last on of us is dead. End of story. I do not like war but I do not like seeing fellow Americans slaughtered. I wish they would have never gotten all pissed off that we stepped on their "holy land" because we wouldn't be in this mess then. Peace did nothing for us except buy the terrorists time to kill more Americans. I do not like war but sitting on our hands got us nothing. They hate any American because they are American. The terrorists didn't care who was in office or what they were doing because they want to kill Americans and that's all. Clinton or Bush it didn't matter. So don't try to blame what I say for the reason America was attacked because it doesn't hold up at all. It is about as dumb as me saying your line of thought is why terrorists hate America. Or your face is the reason terrorists hate America. Please next time try to argue something or refute a statement instead of make a mindless attack.

 

[baxter]

No...stop trying to attack me by saying terrorists hate us because we hate terrorists and want to defend our county. They hate us because we stepped on their holy land in the gulf war. They pledged a holy war then and they wouldn't stop until every last on of us is dead. End of story. I do not like war but I do not like seeing fellow Americans slaughtered. I wish they would have never gotten all pissed off that we stepped on their "holy land" because we wouldn't be in this mess then. Peace did nothing for us except buy the terrorists time to kill more Americans. I do not like war but sitting on our hands got us nothing. They hate any American because they are American. The terrorists didn't care who was in office or what they were doing because they want to kill Americans and that's all. Clinton or Bush it didn't matter. So don't try to blame what I say for the reason America was attacked because it doesn't hold up at all. It is about as dumb as me saying your line of thought is why terrorists hate America. Or your face is the reason terrorists hate America. Please next time try to argue something or refute a statement instead of make a mindless attack.

Take it easy pal, I only asked a civil question, take few deep breathes. I wasn't attacking nor provoking, just simply asking a question.

Ever wondered why?

 

[Bait]

No...stop trying to attack me by saying terrorists hate us because we hate terrorists and want to defend our county. They hate us because we stepped on their holy land in the gulf war. They pledged a holy war then and they wouldn't stop until every last on of us is dead. End of story. I do not like war but I do not like seeing fellow Americans slaughtered. I wish they would have never gotten all pissed off that we stepped on their "holy land" because we wouldn't be in this mess then. Peace did nothing for us except buy the terrorists time to kill more Americans. I do not like war but sitting on our hands got us nothing. They hate any American because they are American. The terrorists didn't care who was in office or what they were doing because they want to kill Americans and that's all. Clinton or Bush it didn't matter. So don't try to blame what I say for the reason America was attacked because it doesn't hold up at all. It is about as dumb as me saying your line of thought is why terrorists hate America. Or your face is the reason terrorists hate America. Please next time try to argue something or refute a statement instead of make a mindless attack.

What mindless attack? It seemed pretty reasonable to me. What I am trying to understand is where are you getting all your top-notch terrorist agenda info from? As far as I can tell, the Gulf holds no religious or holy significance. Not that it matters, if any invader decided to invade for one half-lame reason or another you can expect some resistance.

You can't hide behind the curtain of America being a noble hero entering the lowliest depths of this earth and cleaning out the scum. America is capable of doing wrong. America has done wrong. America IS DOING WRONG. Whether you support the war or not, understand that American policy and its leadership is not infalliable. Before rampaging against all the evil and hatred being directed towards the States, why is it so hard to break free of the notion that America's will is unquestionable? Saying "they hate us because we are simply "American" " doesn't answer anything. There must have been a trigger, real or perceived, somewhere down the line that bred this kind of attitude. I can't possibly understand how someone can conjure up a tyrade against people and groups killing innocents while they support a different set of people and groups who are killing innocents by the thousands more.

And one last thing: As far as Islam goes, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HOLY WAR. None. At all. War is not holy, no matter what those lunatics say. The term "holy war", ironically enough, poped up during the crusades. Interesting we hear this term revived again, considering the circumstances.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Interestingly enough Islam is at the same stage of it's religious lifecycle as Christianity was when it launched the Crusades.

 

[gh0st]

I'm following the golden rule of your bible, believe it or not. If I were fighting in a war, i would rather die of a bullet to the head then of having my flesh burn off for a few minutes.
So were I soldier confronted by a terrorist I would act better than a terrorist.
The point of the entire war on terror is that we are not like terrorists. Blurring that line undermines the whole affair.

i find melting a terrorist enemy just as efficient as blowing their face off with a high caliber rifle. i also find it no more, or less, human or inhumane. also, i am not christian. so i dont know of which bible you speak.

were "i soldier" confronted by a terrorist i would kill him in any way possible. but i guess we arent quite as moral as you

Your no-limits approach can only lead to escalation.
They chop off heads, you burn their skin off while they are alive. They attack new york again, you nuke their citizens. Did we learn nothing from the cold war?

its a back and forth conflict. they lop our heads off and we melt them. i doubt that these terrorists are complaining that they are being melted anymore than they expect us to complain that they are still attacking us. to say we'd ever nuke their citizens is outrageous... it couldnt possibly escalate that far. even bush knows we arent fighting some country we are fighting an ideology.

Frankly, you are saying things exactly as we all assume a terrorist would.
-You would kill countless civilians just to hit your enemies.
-You hold an abstract and dehumanizing view of your political opponents.
-You would use nuclear / chemical / biological weapons without second thought.
-You are extremely nationalistic, to the point that people of other nations are considered naturally inferior to you.
-You claim to be the most moral faction, but also elaborate on your lack of ethical limitations.
-You claim that you are a friend to civilians while simultaneously not caring about their lives.
etc.

1. no
2. terrorists are not political opponents, they are military ones. i would agree that osama bin laden is a political enemy, but he, and thus by extension his organization, is just as much military as it is political.
3. ....not in any seriousness. if i've ever said nuke the middle east it was most likely meant to be taken in jest.
4. not necessarily.. no nation is better than another. some represent better things than others. but yeah i am extremely nationalistic, you got me.
5. i have ethical limitations FOR THOSE WHO DESERVE THEM. people who decapitate our soldiers do not - they are military targets and should be incapacitated by any means necessary.
6. i care to the extent that i want the mission accomplished and our troops to go home. if civilians must die for a greater good than so be it.

The thread is about ethics in moden warfare.
You claim to have no ethical limitations, correct?

as i said earlier, i have them for those who deserve them

or, at least, you claim you would nuke an entire third of a continent just to stop terrorism.

wow.. if it STOPPED terrorism? everywhere? just israel? just in america? just in russia? just in south east asia? all of them? i'd have to think about that one. would you nuke a country to stop hunger or war?

Very few people would make that claim. Most people would call that a genocide. This makes you an abnormality.

very few indeed, would make that claim seriously.

I am positing that your abnormality is the result of a lack of contact with the real world.

thanks for your observation

As for my qualifications, I say acting like a terrorist is bad. Most people would agree with me on that, seeing as how your style of 'acting like a terrorist' caused 9/11 when actual terrorists attempted it. Most people call those who act as you propose cowardly and downright evil. Most people would not see them as strategic role-models to be emulated.

none of those are qualifications.

So I think that makes me fully qualified as fitting society's definition of normal, wheras you are talking like a criminal would. Literally. You are openly stating your desire to commit various warcrimes.
Thus, I feel I have every right to criticise you.

haha youre so pompous... OK, if i ever said nuke a continent/country/planet i was most likely joking. if possible link to where i said that so i can see for myself. maybe i wasent.

You want to make a soldier's job easier, huh? A soldier's job is just as much peacekeeping as it is killing.

peacekeeping the iraqi people against the head-cutters and men in dirty night shirts? how do you think thats done, handing out posies to these terrorists? think again, how about by handing them a wp grenade.

By imagining your troops as purely killing machines, you are nullifying half their purpose; the part that needs morals to work. By ignoring half a soldier's job, you are undermining their entire job. It's about winning, and sometimes having a higher killcount doesn't help you win.

victory in this sense is indeed not the higher kill count, its in our capacity to leave that shithole asap. however to do that we have to kill these people because they are the entity that is preventing us from leaving. if there was no insurgency we wouldnt be there - see? if they were dead, there would be no insurgency.

Half this conflict is ideology, and ignoring that half of the process is failure. By presenting your ideology as 'just as bad', how are you going to get supporters?
How are you going to get allies?

far more than half, i would say. I DONT WANT supporters for this war and i dont want allies i want our troops out of there as quickly as possible. and by possible i dont mean the iraqi governments ability to govern, i mean "how fast can our airplanes get there". its not that i'm tired of this war (well i, as everyone else, am) its that i see NO gain for america. there was a purpose in the beginning, a legitimate threat to american security but now this is pointless. hell there isnt even cheaper oil. its just a waste of lives on both sides.

You can't possibly kill every terrorist, so obviously sloppy, painful (but easy) death should not be a key concern. Rather, it should be a balance of force and maintaining a desirable image. Hence my 'golden rule' stance of minimizing assholishness but still doing the job.

ok well i just fail to see where melting someone is any worse than cutting someones head off, shooting someone, or crashing planes into towers, or getting bombed or obliterated with a 30mm cannon. nor do i see how WP is an "assholish" way to kill someone. any way you cut it, killing someone is an assholish thing to do.

So instead you support the current military hierarchy which has failed most of the Iraq war, which you are now eager to pull out of? Even with your phosphor bombs, the war is no closer to an end. But look at all the outrage they have generated! Certainly terrorist recruiters are using news of your phosphor bombs as fuel for additional hatred as we speak.

if i've ever argued for this war is was simply because i cant stand the way some of the idiots on these forums pontificate their views. i do support our hierarchy - it wasent them that failed, it was our politicians and the lack of any cohesive plan out. there sure was a plan in, but now we are bogged down and americans are tired.

The war that used many of your sort of amoral and/or 'easy' techniques instead of more precision strategy consequently failed at basically all its core objectives, save for the installation of a democracy which is currently only barely propped up.

only barely? well no shit - its been what, 2-3 years? it took our own democracy far longer. it took most democracies in the world quite some time to set up... it doesnt happen over night. i would contend that the objective to install democracy has succeeded.

If I really were leading the fight against terrorism, I would not strive to be like a terrorist. Especially since those aspects of the Iraq war, from the coalition, that most resemble terrorism are also its biggest failures.
Call me crazy, but I don't want to be Osama Bin Laden: North-American Edition.

yeah we're the terrorists :dozey:

there already IS an osama bin laden north american edition, and i believe it crashed into our vulnerable ass on 9/11. wake up.

I'll just ride about on a horse lopping off people's heads, desperate to keep my immorality quota higher than the latest terrorist atrocity.

might as well, i guess.

I am sorry if i sound passionate here, but over the course of my study of the War on Terror, I have grown to loathe terrorists with their terrible pseudo-rationalizations of their blatant inhumanity towards other people. Their weak "we act exactly as inhumane as the infidels, but it's okay for us because we are 'good' and they are 'not good'" philosophy.

WHAT MAKES WP ANY WORSE THAN BLOWING SOMEONE TO SMITHEREENS WITH A 1000LB BOMB.

NOTHING. so you suggest we stop bombing? how about shooting, i bet it hurts to have an ounce of lead moving through your bowels at a high rate of speed, exiting your center mass and bringing everything with it. i bet it hurts when a tank blows up a building and smashes whatevers in it. should we stop all of those? using your idiotic logic, yes we should. and we wont. WP is no worse. its not some weapon of mass destruction like you morons think it is.. thats just outrageous.

there is a difference between us. we dont purposefully attack and kill civilians and aid workers and they do. thats how they fight. thats what seperates the good from the evil.

After learning so much about that evil, I am just dumbfounded that a person claiming to be on my side is acting so similar.

clearly we arent on the same side then.

If you don't give a shit about the well-being of other countries' citizens, how can you expect them to care if our towers crumble again?
Who will be your coalition in the next war?

luckily we dont need one. we are using 10% of our military might and we are taking a TWO countries. need we take 19 more out? if we go into a whole other country i'm going to be royally pissed as that is NOT how you fight the war on terror. somehow i doubt most governments are mad at us for the weapons we use, rather the reasons we use them.

And how can you expect them to grow up respecting you enough not to wish us dead?
By openly embracing barbarism, you are doing a disservice to yourself and to the entire civilized world.

sigh once again, WP is not any more barbaric than any other weapon of war.

So when you so openly toss away rational thought and long-term planning in exchange for a bigger gun, what am I to call you other than immature?

a bigger gun? we've been using WP for years. a bigger gun would be some sort of space laser. and if that would kill terrorists i'd want one of those too.

 

[SAJ]

Interestingly enough Islam is at the same stage of it's religious lifecycle as Christianity was when it launched the Crusades.

So thats what, 2002?
Damn , theyre catching up fast.

 

[Sparta]

I'm sure somebody may have already posted this video, but if it hasn't been posted its incredibly interesting and really demonstrates how horrible White Phosphorus is

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video/fallujah_ING.wmv

 

[gh0st]

a biased video but interesting none-the-less.

btw, napalm is not equal to WP - edit, ahh there it is. no doubt its a shitty weapon.. i wasent aware it was used as a "bomb" like that video was implying, or that it was used to level fallujah... i'td be interesting to see some more on its use in fallujah.. i was under the impression it was used as a grenade.. ie a smaller area of impact.

 

[15357]

a biased video but interesting none-the-less.

btw, napalm is not equal to WP - edit, ahh there it is. no doubt its a shitty weapon.. i wasent aware it was used as a "bomb" like that video was implying, or that it was used to level fallujah... i'td be interesting to see some more on its use in fallujah.. i was under the impression it was used as a grenade.. ie a smaller area of impact.

And I thought you could spray WP like insecticide.....

 

[Tr0n]

Interestingly enough Islam is at the same stage of it's religious lifecycle as Christianity was when it launched the Crusades.

Tru.dat nugga.

 

[Sparta]

a biased video but interesting none-the-less.

btw, napalm is not equal to WP - edit, ahh there it is. no doubt its a shitty weapon.. i wasent aware it was used as a "bomb" like that video was implying, or that it was used to level fallujah... i'td be interesting to see some more on its use in fallujah.. i was under the impression it was used as a grenade.. ie a smaller area of impact.

Pretty horrific stuff isn't it. It actually looks more like Phosporus flares than bombs. I think i'd prefer they used the bombs though. Sounds like it would be a quicker death with the added explosions.

 

[bliink]

Pretty horrific stuff isn't it. It actually looks more like Phosporus flares than bombs. I think i'd prefer they used the bombs though. Sounds like it would be a quicker death with the added explosions.

With a bomb, theres more chance of a bit of it hitting you from far away though, or penetrating a wall or something..

You'd prefer a direct bomb hit over a direct flare hit, though.

 

[Bait]

I just saw a mini-doc on WP in Iraq on TV. Apparently, and I apologize if this was stated before, there are US army training manuals that clearly state that WP is an illegal weapon to be used on ground combat, due to its indiscriminate nature of killing. Using WP is apparently against the chemical weapons convention act, and it is possible (actually, it would be necessary) that the US be tried under international law for war crimes if WP was used. Now some Americans don't consider WP to be a chemical weapon, but interestingly enough WP poped up under the list of chemical weapons Saddam was supposed to have, but never did exist. So, the US charges in to get rid of these horrible chemical weapons only to end up using them to murder the masses.

EDIT: ComradeBadger, care to elaborate on your point?

 

[Glirk Dient]

I just saw a mini-doc on WP in Iraq on TV. Apparently, and I apologize if this was stated before, there are US army training manuals that clearly state that WP is an illegal weapon to be used on ground combat, due to its indiscriminate nature of killing. Using WP is apparently against the chemical weapons convention act, and it is possible (actually, it would be necessary) that the US be tried under international law for war crimes if WP was used. Now some Americans don't consider WP to be a chemical weapon, but interestingly enough WP poped up under the list of chemical weapons Saddam was supposed to have, but never did exist. So, the US charges in to get rid of these horrible chemical weapons only to end up using them to murder the masses.

EDIT: ComradeBadger, care to elaborate on your point?

Hmm, that sounds plausible. Yeah I guess in that case whoever used it should be tried. Mind you no one is going to charge the U.S. because a few soldiers made up their own minds that it would be a good weapon to use against them. It would be like charging an entire state because 1 citizen murdered someone. Those soldiers that used it should get punished since it is illegal still.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Killing is Killing

i find melting a terrorist enemy just as efficient as blowing their face off with a high caliber rifle. i also find it no more, or less, human or inhumane.
[...]
were "i soldier" confronted by a terrorist i would kill him in any way possible.
[...]
ok well i just fail to see where melting someone is any worse than cutting someones head off, shooting someone, or crashing planes into towers, or getting bombed or obliterated with a 30mm cannon. nor do i see how WP is an "assholish" way to kill someone. any way you cut it, killing someone is an assholish thing to do.
[...]
WHAT MAKES WP ANY WORSE THAN BLOWING SOMEONE TO SMITHEREENS WITH A 1000LB BOMB. NOTHING. so you suggest we stop bombing? how about shooting, i bet it hurts to have an ounce of lead moving through your bowels at a high rate of speed, exiting your center mass and bringing everything with it. i bet it hurts when a tank blows up a building and smashes whatevers in it. should we stop all of those? using your idiotic logic, yes we should. and we wont. WP is no worse. its not some weapon of mass destruction like you morons think it is.. thats just outrageous.
[...]
sigh once again, WP is not any more barbaric than any other weapon of war.
[...]
a bigger gun would be some sort of space laser. and if that would kill terrorists i'd want one of those too.

First off, thanks for pointing out that I missed an 'a'.
I'd rather not be specific, since I don't have much time to write, but you've made many similar mistakes. Such as leaving every sentence you've written uncapitalized.

I have already stated that my concern is for the survivors and/or civilians who may be caught in the crossfire.
So your focus on killing and killing and how killing is killing isn't relevant.

I have also stated that I have no big problem with guns being used, and I can say right now that I support a judicious use of explosives.
Weapons that cause immolation are considered immoral by most of the world, because the survivors are left in intense pain from injuries that have no truly effective treatment.

Anywho, note from the quotes how you've simplified war into just about purely killing terrorists, and little else.

There is the question of civilian casualties, which I elaborated in a previous nuclear analogy:


Nuclear Weapons?

to say we'd ever nuke their citizens is outrageous... it couldnt possibly escalate that far.
[...]
3. ....not in any seriousness. if i've ever said nuke the middle east it was most likely meant to be taken in jest.
[..]
haha youre so pompous... OK, if i ever said nuke a continent/country/planet i was most likely joking. if possible link to where i said that so i can see for myself. maybe i wasent.

Well I would certainly be glad if you were only joking when you said you 'wouldn't give a shit' if nuclear weapons were used to wipe out the middle east. (it's in this thread, so you can find your quote easily enough).

Even if you were joking though, your comments and general philosophy really indicate to me that you have little or no concern for civilians, survivors of your 'might' and public opinion or perceived inhumanity against enemy combatants:

What About People Who Aren't Your Enemies?

6. i care to the extent that i want the mission accomplished and our troops to go home. if civilians must die for a greater good than so be it.
[...]
there is a difference between us. we dont purposefully attack and kill civilians and aid workers and they do. thats how they fight. thats what seperates the good from the evil.
[...]
I DONT WANT supporters for this war and i dont want allies i want our troops out of there as quickly as possible. and by possible i dont mean the iraqi governments ability to govern, i mean "how fast can our airplanes get there".
[...]
luckily we dont need [a coalition]. we are using 10% of our military might and we are taking a TWO countries.
[...]
its that i see NO gain for america. there was a purpose in the beginning, a legitimate threat to american security but now this is pointless.
[...]
victory in this sense is indeed not the higher kill count, its in our capacity to leave that shithole asap.
[...]
there sure was a plan in, but now we are bogged down and americans are tired.
[...]
its not that i'm tired of this war (well i, as everyone else, am) its that i see NO gain for america.
[...]
if there was no insurgency we wouldnt be there - see? if they were dead, there would be no insurgency.

Note how many times you've stated you care about America and American troops. Then note how many times you've stated that you care about civilians
(1 time. You care about civilians because that is 'what sets you apart from the terrorists'. But first you say that if civilians get in the way, so be it. So that's more like 0.5.)

You also state, and have stated previously, that you do not care at all about other countries' opinion of you or your nation.

So I ask you this simple question:
Where do terrorists come from?

The basic answer is that they are civilians who feel that the western world (specifically America) is directly harming their lives and their nations, and that westerners (specifically americans) simultaneously don't give a shit.

So to all the children in Iraq and the mideast in general who will be growing up in the aftermath of an American war whose only purpose was to fight "a legitimate threat to american security" is this the image you'de really like to broadcast?

Terrorists will be telling these kids that America selfishly attacked Iraq without concern for human life.

And here you are saying that you don't give a shit about anyone but America, and that Iraqi civilian deaths are okay if they are done for the 'greater good' of saving american civilians.

Basically, you are acting like a living stereotype of just about everything the world sees as wrong with the US's mideast policy, and which terrorists are successfully convincing people to kill to stop.

So again, I ask you, is it really so difficult for you to just drop the callous indifference and maybe save American lives by doing so?

You say above that the war in Iraq is lasting so long because of the damn evil insurgents. Those insurgents weren't there before you showed up. Yes, many of them were terrorists who came in just to start shit. But just as many, if not more, are Iraqi citizens who saw your actions as the greater of two evils. So why not maybe be more ethical, to make us clearly and blatantly the better team?

Terrorists are inevitable, and we will need to fight them but, by not giving a shit about anyone but , you and all the westerners like you are painting a big target on our cities. You might think you are supporting the troops and the nation by making americans out to be superior to those 'guys in dirty nightclothes', but it does NOT help.

They dehumanize you just as much as you dehumanize them. And boy, do you ever dehumanize them:

No Mercy

5. i have ethical limitations FOR THOSE WHO DESERVE THEM. people who decapitate our soldiers do not - they are military targets and should be incapacitated by any means necessary.
[...]
peacekeeping the iraqi people against the head-cutters and men in dirty night shirts? how do you think thats done, handing out posies to these terrorists? think again, how about by handing them a wp grenade.

I had a theory in the past that terrorists are being relished as a brand-new "minority" that one can act bigoted and prejudiced against without fear of social repercussions.
My evidence of this foolproof plan? Comments like those.
Yes, obviously terrorists are evil. Evil enough to treat worse than animals? I say no. That's just wanton excess in the guise of justice.

In your opinion, terrorists are evil because they intentionally kill civilians.
To that same extent, you are 'good' because you only unintentionally kill civilians.

Is that honestly the only difference between you and the most overtly evil force in the contemporary world?
Don't you want to strive to be better?
If not for the sake of your conscience, than at least for the sake of keeping our nations from being seen as even more tempting targets in a jihad against inhumanities, both real and percieved?

If the only difference between us and them is a focus on military targets, what do you make of the attack on the pentagon? Under that loose standard, it's borderline legit.
Beheading soldiers? Well, that would be legit tactics too.

That's the big point you didn't seem to get.
You've lowered your ethical standards so low that you are legitmizing terrorists' awful tactics.
So if they use white phosphorous to burn one of your soldiers, that would be legitimate too now. Because they'd be acting just like you.

 

[gh0st]

If the only difference between us and them is a focus on military targets, what do you make of the attack on the pentagon? Under that loose standard, it's borderline legit.
Beheading soldiers? Well, that would be legit tactics too.

i appologize for not replying to your whole post, you basically outline the differences in our thought on the issue. i would say that suicide bombing the pentagon may very well be a legitimate attack. not when its done with 100 civilians though.

 

[SAJ]

Breaking news: US army refers to white phosphorous as "chemical weapon" used by Iraq in `91.

. DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION,
THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE
PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN
BORDERS --
A. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES'
OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR
STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL
CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL
TO
PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE
PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE
POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN
BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI
BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY
ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION
AT
THIS TIME).

Link to declassified document: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

Hmm, interesting.

 

[Adabiviak]

Ouch! Having "rules" about war is an interesting concept in the first place, but this certainly should be on the list of no-nos (and we certainly shouldn't be using it, being there on the AHEMfalseAHEM pretext that the previous dictator had weapons on that same list).

Phosphoric acid? Poll! How many people here have had phosphoric acid (not in the context of soda, either, like 18mol H3PO4) on you? It's got a special kind of zing. Reminds me of a story our chemistry teacher used to love: Johnny studied chemistry but Johnny is no more; what he thought was H2O was H3PO4.

...but I digress.

 

[CptStern]

Breaking news: US army refers to white phosphorous as "chemical weapon" used by Iraq in `91.


Link to declassified document: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

Hmm, interesting.

whoo-hoo the irony gods doled out a big "in your face Bush" when they found that buried that little gem of hypocricy

the sheer audacity the sheer ****ing contempt for americans and for the world in general when Bush specifically mentioned that saddam had used chemical weapons during the Anfal Campaign when he himself is using them on civilians/insurgents.



I'd really like someone to try to justify this ..the war was a sham and as the years go by more will be revealed but being the cowards that all westerners are the players responsible for this will walk away scott free. It's absolutely sickening.

 

[southernman17]

What are you going to do about it stern? Post on a website?

 

[Bait]

Breaking news: US army refers to white phosphorous as "chemical weapon" used by Iraq in `91.


Link to declassified document: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

Hmm, interesting.

Didja read my post a little ways up??

I just saw a mini-doc on WP in Iraq on TV. Apparently, and I apologize if this was stated before, there are US army training manuals that clearly state that WP is an illegal weapon to be used on ground combat, due to its indiscriminate nature of killing. Using WP is apparently against the chemical weapons convention act, and it is possible (actually, it would be necessary) that the US be tried under international law for war crimes if WP was used. Now some Americans don't consider WP to be a chemical weapon, but interestingly enough WP poped up under the list of chemical weapons Saddam was supposed to have, but never did exist. So, the US charges in to get rid of these horrible chemical weapons only to end up using them to murder the masses.

Screw '91, the US declared WP an illegal chemical weapon when making their case for war.

 

[CptStern]

What are you going to do about it stern? Post on a website?

you mean an indisputable government document that proves the hypocrisy of the US? ...but I guess we're free to dismiss it because it's on teh internets


you're a fool southernman and a blind one at that ...just so long as you toe the political line everythings all right with you ...like a horse with blinders, a full head mask and ear plugs, loudly singing america the beautiful lin an attempt to drown any sort of dissent

this is you to a "T"



Southernman better keep your head, don't forget what your good book said.
Southern change gonna come at last. Now your crosses are burning fast, Southernman

 

[southernman17]

Cpt.Stern you are just a lazy bitching no good. Go out and do something about it. Hell, you're not even American. Here's a little reminder, I am, I have the power to influence the system under which I live. You dont! You have no power or say or any influence in the American poilitical system! I bet that really pisses you off. You seem to know me pretty well going off and posting a picture like that, don't you? I say you are lazy and do nothing to influence the system, you come back with a "personal" attack, that doesn't even represent the person I am. Your foolishness is unfathomable. I can't really even comprehend your lack of intellect.


Furthermore, grow up already. Honestly, don't you think you're a little old for this already?

 

[CptStern]

Cpt.Stern you are just a lazy bitching no good. Go out and do something about it. Hell, you're not even American. Here's a little reminder, I am, I have the power to influence the system under which I live. You dont! You have no power or say or any influence in the American poilitical system! I bet that really pisses you off. You seem to know me pretty well going off and posting a picture like that, don't you? I say you are lazy and do nothing to influence the system, you come back with a "personal" attack, that doesn't even represent the person I am. Your foolishness is unfathomable. I can't really even comprehend your lack of intellect.


Furthermore, grow up already. Honestly, don't you think you're a little old for this already?

we're the same age if I recall correctly

...and lazy? how do you figure? cuz I havent gone to iraq to throw myself in front of an american tank? ...if that's the case why havent you enlisted to fight for your country in iraq? your country needs you


and no it doesnt bother me that I have no influence in american politics ...and in your case ..it's too bad you choose not to use it


oh and relax it isnt a personal attack ..the blinders thing is true because I'm willing to bet your didnt even get past paragraph one of SAJ's link ..am I right? The southernman thingy at the end is actually the lyrics to Neil Young's "Southernman" ..I just thought it appropriate