US officals confirms that white phosporus as a weapon

[southernman17]

First off, I am not the same age as you or anywhere near it. I recall you saying you were born before the moon landing. That occured in '69. So at the very least, you're 36 years old. I'm saying your lazy because your lack of political efficacy is low, or so it seems. I'm also saying you are powerless when it comes to influencing the American political system, whereas I am not. I am registereg to vote, which means I'm also registered to be drafted. So I'm not the lazy one. By the way, I do work at my local REPUBLICAN PARTY headquarters, another sign of high political efficacy for me. Finally, yes, it was a personal attack. The lyrics including a reference to the KKK, insinuating I am a member of the hate group, the Ku Klux Klan. I think that wouldn't be possible especially as I am a Catholic and they do hate Catholics.

 

[CptStern]

First off, I am not the same age as you or anywhere near it.

my mistake, I could have sworn you said you're in your 30's

I'm saying your lazy because your lack of political efficacy is low, or so it seems.


I'm also saying you are powerless when it comes to influencing the American political system, whereas I am not. I am registereg to vote, which means I'm also registered to be drafted. So I'm not the lazy one. By the way, I do work at my local REPUBLICAN PARTY headquarters, another sign of high political efficacy for me.

well considering my not being american that's pretty expected dontcha think? besides, belonging to a political party is not the best way of working to seek change ...I could probably point out a handful of teachers/doctors/lawyers/mothers/people in general who have initiated or participated in real meaningful change much moreso than any political group ...specifically political groups that are more willing to toe the party line regardless of the issue than do what is right

Finally, yes, it was a personal attack. The lyrics including a reference to the KKK, insinuating I am a member of the hate group, the Ku Klux Klan. I think that wouldn't be possible especially as I am a Catholic and they do hate Catholics.

well that's your interpretation, albeit the incorrect one

...I meant the lyrics to parralel your unwillingness to change:

"Southern change gonna come at last Now your crosses are burning fast, Southernman" which means that despite the fact that change is coming you still cling to your ideology almost retreating within it


sometimes somethings are more than what they seem, ya know

 

[Skar]

Someone wish to tell me what makes these WP grenades any different than any other explosive device?

Is being quickly consumed by flame any worse than having your organs hit with a compressed air shockwave causing massive internal bleeding and having shrapnel rip your insides to shreds? If you're dead, you ain't gonna care if you 'reignite' or not.

It's a grenade, and just like any grenade it doesn't care who it kills. Where it goes is based on where its thrown. Doesn't mean it should be banned. Bombs from plains and artillery makes much bigger and less discriminating 'booms'.

 

[CptStern]

I guess you missed the part where they admitted to using shells?

 

[15357]

I guess you missed the part where they admitted to using shells?

Grenades, shells, whats the difference? They both kill.

Although shells do kill more.

 

[CptStern]

american soldiers admitted that the weapon was used on civilans ..that by definition makes it a chemical weapon

 

[SAJ]

Sorry Stern, but youre wrong . The definition of the weapon doesnt change depending on the target. What does change the definition of WP is whether or not the chemical or the thermal properties were relied on in order to do damage to the target.
The real crime in regards to Falluja and WP is that it was being used in artillery shells , fired into a city where thousands of civilians had been prevented from leaving.

 

[CptStern]

Sorry Stern, but youre wrong . The definition of the weapon doesnt change depending on the target. What does change the definition of WP is whether or not the chemical or the thermal properties were relied on in order to do damage to the target.
The real crime in regards to Falluja and WP is that it was being used in artillery shells , fired into a city where thousands of civilians had been prevented from leaving.

no I'm not wrong:


"Venable said white phosphorus weapons are not outlawed or banned by any convention.

However, a protocol to an accord on conventional weapons which took effect in 1983 forbids using incendiary weapons against civilians.

The protocol also forbids their use against military targets within concentrations of civilians, except when the targets are clearly separated from civilians and "all feasible precautions" are taken to avoid civilian casualties.

The United States is a party to the overall accord, but has not ratified the incendiary-weapons protocol or another involving blinding laser weapons.


source

 

[SAJ]

Heh, nice try , but no cigar.
Trying the old "bait and switch" are we Stern? Well , lets see:
You start by claiming that classification of WP, changes according to whom its used on.....

american soldiers admitted that the weapon was used on civilans ..that by definition makes it a chemical weapon

When corrected , you then claim that youre not wrong because "a protocol to an accord on conventional weapons which took effect in 1983 forbids using incendiary weapons against civilians." Which has nothing to do with either your original claim, nor my response. Its unrelated, and you know it.
Wow, you just cant bear to be wrong about anything can you old boy?

So , whats it to be ? Back down now or must I dig out the relevant clause the chemical weapons protocol?

 

[CptStern]

quit being so patronizing:


"Professor Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford department of peace studies said it probably would fall into the category of chemical weapons if it was used directly against people.

white phosphorus would be considered as a chemical weapon under international conventions if it was "deliberately aimed at people to have a chemical effect".

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."



source


The debate about WP centers around its categorization (semantics): is it a conventional weapon or chemical weapon? According to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague (per BBC):
White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement... If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.


source

 

[K e r b e r o s]

weapon during the seige of Falluja.

Well, its an excellent trade off from sending retarded kids with bombs on their backs screaming at US Hummers with the detonator in Abu Masab Al-Zarqwai's 1st luietenants hand ...

 

[SAJ]

dont patronize me:

Well thats rich coming from you, its just a shame you had to take it so seriously.

"Professor Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford department of peace studies said it probably would fall into the category of chemical weapons if it was used directly against people.

And section 2 of the convention of chemical weapons says:

DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA

For the purposes of this Convention:

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/553?OpenDocument

So you , I and the icrc agree at last, thats good.
If what you meant to say was that the classification of WP changes when used on people , then just say so, rather than reply with a quote from the convention on incendary weapons that appears to back up your assertion without being relevant to the question.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Just face it folks -- your afraid to catch fire!

 

[CptStern]

Well thats rich coming from you, its just a shame you had to take it so seriously.
And section 2 of the convention of chemical weapons says: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/553?OpenDocument

So you , I and the icrc agree at last, thats good.
If what you meant to say was that the classification of WP changes when used on people , then just say so, rather than reply with a quote from the convention on incendary weapons that appears to back up your assertion without being relevant to the question.

look I'm at work and really dont have a lot of time to post things accurately ..if you've noticed over 80% of my posts are edited because I really dont have the time to re-check what I've said ...I thought it was obvious what I was getting at because I've posted it a few times in this thread



oh and I'm not condescending unless the person deserves to be treated so