What I want to know is.... is this official policy? Is this what our military command actually came up with? Are the scapegoats already being lined up for framing?
Or are these rogue incidents by rogue officers, out in the field, in defiance of our war planners?
Still fighting back anger. The road to hell is paved with 'good intentions', and taxes.
That's the thing about war. In the real world, shit like this always seems to happen, despite all of the convincing copy from military theoreticians. Really.
US USED WHITE PHOSPHORUS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON FALLUJAH
There's no difference, no split between the improved accuracy of weapons guidance systems, so-called smart bombs, and the more crude and deliberate weaponry like chemical burning, petroleum jelly, or cluster bombs. Smart bombs are useful in target accuracy, not in the reduction of civilian casualties. It is a myth, and is one of the psychological defense mechanisms used by pro-war types to avoid self-admission of guilt, along with a compartmentalizatin of perspective, a handy technique that allows for most anything, complete the mission,
and there's no split, no difference between the Iraq War, its dominant profiteers, and the oil company execs who colluded with Bush and Co. to promote their own well being at the expense of an entire nation, the consequences of which will be unfolding as we age and watch.
The dog starved at his master's gate
predicts the ruin of the state.
?
and there's no split, no difference between the Iraq War, its dominant profiteers, and the oil company execs who colluded with Bush and Co. to promote their own well being at the expense of an entire nation, the consequences of which will be unfolding as we age and watch.
The dog starved at his master's gate
predicts the ruin of the state.
These issues are all inter-related. As the house of "reps" designates the budgetary priorities, it is exactly in tune, a rubber-stamp apparatus that pays for the willy-petes, the sons of napalm, the pomegranete bombs. Lobbiests court them. How anyone could compartmentalise is beyone me. It is the over arching mentality that controls this national policy, one that rewards the greed of the elite, makes wars that promote their agenda as "national intrerest." It is a wholly corrupt state of affairs here in Aamerica, right now. Cluster bombs deployed by Aamerican military in Iraq is against any normal sense of decency, regardless of any Geneva Convention standard of conduct, which is really only wishing into the wind, I know, and the bombs are made in Aamerica by private companies in east Texas in the deep piney woods north of Marshall and Longview and employ umpteen hundreds of backwoods redneck folk, and their little white churches that you see back off the side of the road, ghostly white in the night, alone and quiet. And the owners of those weapons factories make a lot of dough.I suppose this is all meaning less ramble but it all seems related, the war, crusaders, state religion
?
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
Well, that's what I'm asking, knip. Is this 'misuse' in fact policy. Who gave the orders, and who might be sacrificed to take the fall for it if necessary. Of course we'll ever know the full truth of it, I wager. Truth is irrelevant anyway.
If this war is such a moral mission, why are we forced to keep asking these same type of questions over repeated abuses?
If this war is such a moral mission, why are we forced to keep asking these same type of questions over repeated abuses?
well, you've got different types of military people...some try hard to stick to the law, some don't, some follow all their orders, some don't...sort of like real life
i think a lot has to do with how the insurgents/rebels/terrorists are being classified, which is as illegal combatants...by not declaring war, they don't have to accord them the rights and protections of combatants...they are clearly not non-combatants, so what is left is illegal combatants...and these types of folks have less legal protection than combatants and non-combatants
but that argument is moot, really, because they still seem to be overstepping the bounds of legality when it comes to these folks...the whole 'with us or against us' approach, the issue of non-combatants, the crusadish aspect, tends to make folks go over the top...there may be some direction from higher up to do this, but i'm not certain...i'd love to be a fly on the wall at the J3 Legal briefings and hear what the lawyers are telling the commanders
i think a lot has to do with how the insurgents/rebels/terrorists are being classified, which is as illegal combatants...by not declaring war, they don't have to accord them the rights and protections of combatants...they are clearly not non-combatants, so what is left is illegal combatants...and these types of folks have less legal protection than combatants and non-combatants
but that argument is moot, really, because they still seem to be overstepping the bounds of legality when it comes to these folks...the whole 'with us or against us' approach, the issue of non-combatants, the crusadish aspect, tends to make folks go over the top...there may be some direction from higher up to do this, but i'm not certain...i'd love to be a fly on the wall at the J3 Legal briefings and hear what the lawyers are telling the commanders
that is the whole rub
they are illegal combatants
and so the people around them get the same dose of aggressive weaponry that they do
so it is a moot point because they are people
they're so-called legal briefs are mere posturing
who's the fly in the ointment
it makes no matter
we know that these weapons are being used
by the us and brits
god save the queen
see her royal countenance glow with pride
as the young prince shows off his uniform
and ships out to basra
sawed off shotguns were used in vietnam
sure they are a fave in i rock city
the logistics of it will answer your questions of who was responsible
maybe the quartermaster got them
personally i think these soldiers and pilots and tankers
and artillerymen were presented with these weapons as their weaponry and they put them to use
bam
and the good folks in east texas are making more
waking to the working week!
they are illegal combatants
and so the people around them get the same dose of aggressive weaponry that they do
so it is a moot point because they are people
they're so-called legal briefs are mere posturing
who's the fly in the ointment
it makes no matter
we know that these weapons are being used
by the us and brits
god save the queen
see her royal countenance glow with pride
as the young prince shows off his uniform
and ships out to basra
sawed off shotguns were used in vietnam
sure they are a fave in i rock city
the logistics of it will answer your questions of who was responsible
maybe the quartermaster got them
personally i think these soldiers and pilots and tankers
and artillerymen were presented with these weapons as their weaponry and they put them to use
bam
and the good folks in east texas are making more
waking to the working week!
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
More "collateral damage"?
Perhaps legal classification should have been less ambiguous?
Were the people in the van legal or illegal?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051121/ts_ ... _baquba_dc
--Z
Perhaps legal classification should have been less ambiguous?
Were the people in the van legal or illegal?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051121/ts_ ... _baquba_dc
--Z
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
November 21st, 2005 3:25 am
Defense of Phosphorus Use Turns Into Damage Control
By Scott Shane / New York Times
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 - On Nov. 8, Italian public television showed a documentary renewing persistent charges that the United States had used white phosphorus rounds, incendiary munitions that the film incorrectly called chemical weapons, against Iraqis in Falluja last year. Many civilians died of burns, the report said.
The half-hour film was riddled with errors and exaggerations, according to United States officials and independent military experts. But the State Department and Pentagon have so bungled their response - making and then withdrawing incorrect statements about what American troops really did when they fought a pitched battle against insurgents in the rebellious city - that the charges have produced dozens of stories in the foreign news media and on Web sites suggesting that the Americans used banned weapons and tried to cover it up.
The Iraqi government has announced an investigation, and a United Nations spokeswoman has expressed concern.
"It's discredited the American military without any basis in fact," said John E. Pike, an expert on weapons who runs GlobalSecurity.org, an independent clearinghouse for military information. He said the "stupidity and incompetence" of official comments had fueled suspicions of a cover-up.
"The story most people around the world have is that the Americans are up to their old tricks - committing atrocities and lying about it," Mr. Pike said. "And that's completely incorrect."
Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit organization that researches nuclear issues, was more cautious. In light of the issues raised since the film was shown, he said, the Defense Department, and perhaps an independent body, should review whether American use of white phosphorus had been consistent with international weapons conventions.
"There are legitimate questions that need to be asked," Mr. Kimball said. Given the history of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in Iraq, he said, "we have to be extremely careful" to comply with treaties and the rules of war.
At a time when opposition to the war is growing, the white phosphorus issue has reinforced the worst suspicions about American actions.
The documentary was quickly posted as a video file on Web sites worldwide. Bloggers trumpeted its allegations. Foreign newspapers and television reported the charges and rebuttals, with headlines like "The Big White Lie" in The Independent of London.
Officials now acknowledge that the government's initial response was sluggish and misinformed.
"There's so much inaccurate information out there now that I'm not sure we can unscrew it," Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Defense Department spokesman who has handled many inquiries about white phosphorus, said Friday.
The State Department declined to comment for the record, but an official there said privately that the episode was a public relations failure.
The Italian documentary, titled "Falluja: The Hidden Massacre," included gruesome images of victims of the fierce fighting in the city in November 2004. American and Iraqi troops recaptured the city from insurgents, in battles that destroyed an estimated 60 percent of the buildings.
Opening with prolonged shots of Vietnamese children and villages burned by American use of napalm in 1972, the film suggested an equivalence between Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the 1980's and the use of white phosphorus by the American-led forces.
It incorrectly referred to white phosphorus shells - a munition of nearly every military commonly used to create smoke screens or fires - as banned chemical weapons.
The film showed disfigured bodies and suggested that hot-burning white phosphorus had melted the flesh while leaving clothing intact. Sigfrido Ranucci, the television correspondent who made the documentary, said in an interview this month that he had received the photographs from an Iraqi doctor. "We are not talking about corpses like the normal deaths in war," he said.
Military veterans familiar with white phosphorus, known to soldiers as "W. P." or "Willie Pete," said it could deliver terrible burns, since an exploding round scatters bits of the compound that burst into flames on exposure to air and can burn into flesh, penetrating to the bone.
But they said white phosphorus would have burned victims' clothing. The bodies in the film appeared to be decomposed, they said.
In their first comments after the Nov. 8 broadcast, American officials made some of those points. But they relied on an inaccurate State Department fact sheet first posted on the Web last December, when similar accusations first surfaced.
The fact sheet said American forces had used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Falluja, for illumination purposes, and were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."
The Americans stuck to that position last spring after Iraq's Health Ministry claimed it had proof of civilian casualties from the weapons.
After the Italian documentary was broadcast, the American ambassadors to Italy, Ronald P. Spogli, and to Britain, Robert H. Tuttle, echoed the stock defense, denying that white phosphorus munitions had been used against enemy fighters, let alone civilians. At home, on the public radio program "Democracy Now," Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an American military spokesman, said, "I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus."
But those statements were incorrect. Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out. War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles.
In the face of such evidence, the Bush administration made an embarrassing public reversal last week. Pentagon spokesmen admitted that white phosphorus had been used directly against Iraqi insurgents. "It's perfectly legitimate to use this stuff against enemy combatants," Colonel Venable said Friday.
While he said he could not rule out that white phosphorus hit some civilians, "U.S. and coalition forces took extraordinary measures to prevent civilian casualties in Falluja."
Ian Fisher contributed reporting from Rome for this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/inter ... horus.html
Defense of Phosphorus Use Turns Into Damage Control
By Scott Shane / New York Times
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 - On Nov. 8, Italian public television showed a documentary renewing persistent charges that the United States had used white phosphorus rounds, incendiary munitions that the film incorrectly called chemical weapons, against Iraqis in Falluja last year. Many civilians died of burns, the report said.
The half-hour film was riddled with errors and exaggerations, according to United States officials and independent military experts. But the State Department and Pentagon have so bungled their response - making and then withdrawing incorrect statements about what American troops really did when they fought a pitched battle against insurgents in the rebellious city - that the charges have produced dozens of stories in the foreign news media and on Web sites suggesting that the Americans used banned weapons and tried to cover it up.
The Iraqi government has announced an investigation, and a United Nations spokeswoman has expressed concern.
"It's discredited the American military without any basis in fact," said John E. Pike, an expert on weapons who runs GlobalSecurity.org, an independent clearinghouse for military information. He said the "stupidity and incompetence" of official comments had fueled suspicions of a cover-up.
"The story most people around the world have is that the Americans are up to their old tricks - committing atrocities and lying about it," Mr. Pike said. "And that's completely incorrect."
Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit organization that researches nuclear issues, was more cautious. In light of the issues raised since the film was shown, he said, the Defense Department, and perhaps an independent body, should review whether American use of white phosphorus had been consistent with international weapons conventions.
"There are legitimate questions that need to be asked," Mr. Kimball said. Given the history of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in Iraq, he said, "we have to be extremely careful" to comply with treaties and the rules of war.
At a time when opposition to the war is growing, the white phosphorus issue has reinforced the worst suspicions about American actions.
The documentary was quickly posted as a video file on Web sites worldwide. Bloggers trumpeted its allegations. Foreign newspapers and television reported the charges and rebuttals, with headlines like "The Big White Lie" in The Independent of London.
Officials now acknowledge that the government's initial response was sluggish and misinformed.
"There's so much inaccurate information out there now that I'm not sure we can unscrew it," Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Defense Department spokesman who has handled many inquiries about white phosphorus, said Friday.
The State Department declined to comment for the record, but an official there said privately that the episode was a public relations failure.
The Italian documentary, titled "Falluja: The Hidden Massacre," included gruesome images of victims of the fierce fighting in the city in November 2004. American and Iraqi troops recaptured the city from insurgents, in battles that destroyed an estimated 60 percent of the buildings.
Opening with prolonged shots of Vietnamese children and villages burned by American use of napalm in 1972, the film suggested an equivalence between Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the 1980's and the use of white phosphorus by the American-led forces.
It incorrectly referred to white phosphorus shells - a munition of nearly every military commonly used to create smoke screens or fires - as banned chemical weapons.
The film showed disfigured bodies and suggested that hot-burning white phosphorus had melted the flesh while leaving clothing intact. Sigfrido Ranucci, the television correspondent who made the documentary, said in an interview this month that he had received the photographs from an Iraqi doctor. "We are not talking about corpses like the normal deaths in war," he said.
Military veterans familiar with white phosphorus, known to soldiers as "W. P." or "Willie Pete," said it could deliver terrible burns, since an exploding round scatters bits of the compound that burst into flames on exposure to air and can burn into flesh, penetrating to the bone.
But they said white phosphorus would have burned victims' clothing. The bodies in the film appeared to be decomposed, they said.
In their first comments after the Nov. 8 broadcast, American officials made some of those points. But they relied on an inaccurate State Department fact sheet first posted on the Web last December, when similar accusations first surfaced.
The fact sheet said American forces had used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Falluja, for illumination purposes, and were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."
The Americans stuck to that position last spring after Iraq's Health Ministry claimed it had proof of civilian casualties from the weapons.
After the Italian documentary was broadcast, the American ambassadors to Italy, Ronald P. Spogli, and to Britain, Robert H. Tuttle, echoed the stock defense, denying that white phosphorus munitions had been used against enemy fighters, let alone civilians. At home, on the public radio program "Democracy Now," Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an American military spokesman, said, "I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus."
But those statements were incorrect. Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out. War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles.
In the face of such evidence, the Bush administration made an embarrassing public reversal last week. Pentagon spokesmen admitted that white phosphorus had been used directly against Iraqi insurgents. "It's perfectly legitimate to use this stuff against enemy combatants," Colonel Venable said Friday.
While he said he could not rule out that white phosphorus hit some civilians, "U.S. and coalition forces took extraordinary measures to prevent civilian casualties in Falluja."
Ian Fisher contributed reporting from Rome for this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/inter ... horus.html
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
November 19th, 2005 3:52 pm
US Army rules say: 'Don't use WP against people'
By Andrew Buncombe / The Independent
The debate over the use of white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah took a new twist when it emerged the US Army teaches senior officers it is against the "laws of war" to fire the incendiary weapon at human targets.
A section from an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
The row has raged since last year when US troops cleared the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah during a two-week operation that resulted in the deaths of 50 US Marines and more than 1,200 insurgents. Though the US at first denied it had used WP, the Pentagon has admitted using the weapon against insurgent targets. It insists the use of incendiary weapons against military targets is permitted.
But military specialists said the "laws of land warfare" taught at the CGSC are the guidelines that the US Army teaches as general principles. The GCSC generally teaches officers of senior rank such as major and colonel. John Pike, of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "These are the general principles about proportionality, doctrine and so on and so forth."
The Pentagon said it could not account for the discrepancy between its admission that WP was used at Fallujah and the guidance in the teaching manual. A Pentagon spokesman, Lt-Col Barry Venable, said: "For starters, the handbook doesn't say it's banned ... It's also important to remember that WP was used in Fallujah to help dislodge insurgent fighters from prepared defensive positions so that they could then be targeted with high-explosives ammunition."
He also quoted the Army Field Manual, which states: "The use of weapons which employ fire ... is not violative of international law. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering to individuals."
The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits use of incendiaries against civilians and demands that forces using them against military targets take all available steps to avoid civilian casualties.
Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said: "The evidence available suggests that that may not have been done."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... 327926.ece
~~~
The above two articles are from Michael Moore's News Page:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index ... chive=show
US Army rules say: 'Don't use WP against people'
By Andrew Buncombe / The Independent
The debate over the use of white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah took a new twist when it emerged the US Army teaches senior officers it is against the "laws of war" to fire the incendiary weapon at human targets.
A section from an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
The row has raged since last year when US troops cleared the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah during a two-week operation that resulted in the deaths of 50 US Marines and more than 1,200 insurgents. Though the US at first denied it had used WP, the Pentagon has admitted using the weapon against insurgent targets. It insists the use of incendiary weapons against military targets is permitted.
But military specialists said the "laws of land warfare" taught at the CGSC are the guidelines that the US Army teaches as general principles. The GCSC generally teaches officers of senior rank such as major and colonel. John Pike, of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "These are the general principles about proportionality, doctrine and so on and so forth."
The Pentagon said it could not account for the discrepancy between its admission that WP was used at Fallujah and the guidance in the teaching manual. A Pentagon spokesman, Lt-Col Barry Venable, said: "For starters, the handbook doesn't say it's banned ... It's also important to remember that WP was used in Fallujah to help dislodge insurgent fighters from prepared defensive positions so that they could then be targeted with high-explosives ammunition."
He also quoted the Army Field Manual, which states: "The use of weapons which employ fire ... is not violative of international law. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering to individuals."
The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits use of incendiaries against civilians and demands that forces using them against military targets take all available steps to avoid civilian casualties.
Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said: "The evidence available suggests that that may not have been done."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... 327926.ece
~~~
The above two articles are from Michael Moore's News Page:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index ... chive=show
as I've said before, this is all so much posturing. They use willy pete's to flush em out with fire then blast em to smithereens.
here is an actual not matter-of-factual
actual video clip from the Italian Documentary, 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' shows charred remains of female victims and an interview with a former US GI. :
here in thevideo of an ex-marine telling about usage of w.p. in i wrack my brains to understand how an "insider" perspective is necessary, or even defineabull. I mean, is an insider a pilot, a marine, a weapons contractor, or a victim? or somebody ensconced in the military-political beaurocracy who saw a memo or sat in on a meeting where the usage of willie pete's was briefed , briefly,?
why? credits
credits
can't see the forest for the treez
what is defensive about willie petes?.... i believe it is misuse of a defensive weapon in the field...i don't believe it is policy...but i don't 'know' this from an insider perspective
here is an actual not matter-of-factual
actual video clip from the Italian Documentary, 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' shows charred remains of female victims and an interview with a former US GI. :
here in thevideo of an ex-marine telling about usage of w.p. in i wrack my brains to understand how an "insider" perspective is necessary, or even defineabull. I mean, is an insider a pilot, a marine, a weapons contractor, or a victim? or somebody ensconced in the military-political beaurocracy who saw a memo or sat in on a meeting where the usage of willie pete's was briefed , briefly,?
Or a concerned person who sees this and wonders,"There's so much inaccurate information out there now that I'm not sure we can unscrew it," Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Defense Department spokesman who has handled many inquiries about white phosphorus, said Friday.
why? credits
credits
can't see the forest for the treez
Last edited by jimboloco on November 22nd, 2005, 11:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
here's some insiders for you
at the last School of the Americas demos at Ft Benning, photo taken by my friend Jaybird. Click on the image it gets real big. Red dude is Michael Hoffman, one of the founders of Iraq Vets agin th War. Semper Fi.
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
Let's see . . . let me get this straight now . . .
Saddam's army were the bad guys, and that's why we killed them . . .
Now the bad guys are being recruited again because they're good guys . . .
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10133733/
The former bad guys, now the good guys, are being recruited to fight the bad guys . . .
Now that the bad guys are good, WE ( the good guys) can fight the bad guys with the former bad guys ( as our good guys) with our own good guys . . .
And once the former bad guys help us defeat the present bad guys, those bad guys ( now the good guys) will take their rightful place fighting the future bad guys ( since those bad guys are now good guys) . . .
That's true only if the present bad guys are the future bad guys and the present good guys ( once the bad guys) remain the good guys . . .
Boy, it sure is fun following all these strategic steps in "bringing liberty . . .
One thing Bushco reveres is clarity . . .
We're only using weapons to illuminate, but then we use other weapons to annihilate . . .
--Z
Saddam's army were the bad guys, and that's why we killed them . . .
Now the bad guys are being recruited again because they're good guys . . .
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10133733/
The former bad guys, now the good guys, are being recruited to fight the bad guys . . .
Now that the bad guys are good, WE ( the good guys) can fight the bad guys with the former bad guys ( as our good guys) with our own good guys . . .
And once the former bad guys help us defeat the present bad guys, those bad guys ( now the good guys) will take their rightful place fighting the future bad guys ( since those bad guys are now good guys) . . .
That's true only if the present bad guys are the future bad guys and the present good guys ( once the bad guys) remain the good guys . . .
Boy, it sure is fun following all these strategic steps in "bringing liberty . . .
One thing Bushco reveres is clarity . . .
We're only using weapons to illuminate, but then we use other weapons to annihilate . . .
--Z
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
So how do you use WP on insurgants but not on civilians?
I mean, you can rationalize and say, the primary target is a military tactical one, a tactical strike zone, then the bad intel and also the guesstimation as well, regardless of how accurate the shot may be, once the target is decided upon. This assumes an artillery source, but from a speedy jet, a burst of WPs would scatter over a large area, so you say,
ps. somebody got trained in the usage of WP. Somebody brought WPs to the military, somebody made money making WPs, but hey, nobody authorized it.
I mean, you can rationalize and say, the primary target is a military tactical one, a tactical strike zone, then the bad intel and also the guesstimation as well, regardless of how accurate the shot may be, once the target is decided upon. This assumes an artillery source, but from a speedy jet, a burst of WPs would scatter over a large area, so you say,
what you ain't gone and put some mind spin on it, so what.?After initially saying that US forces do not use white phosphorus as a weapon, the Pentagon now says that WP had been used against insurgents in Fallujah. The use of WP against civilians as a weapon is prohibited.
ps. somebody got trained in the usage of WP. Somebody brought WPs to the military, somebody made money making WPs, but hey, nobody authorized it.
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest