well it seems things haven't changed much around here....

You guys still can't seem to see the problem with supporting violent neanderthol ways....

How is American ever going to regain a shed of honor with arm chair soldiers like yourselves wanting to kill, burn or shoot anything that aint a cowboy?

For the record:
  • First hand testimonials from ex Marines confirming that white phosphorus was used in Fallujah and explaining that it burns your body but not your clothing, will boil your lungs from the inside if inhaled, and is almost impossible to stop burning.
  • Footage of corpses of men, women and children who had the entirety of their skin burnt off, in some cases all the way to the bone, but their clothing left intact â?? the trademark of white phosphorus â?? and in several cases with their musculature not quite burnt through, so you could see the expressions (from what I saw, expressions of horror) on their faces as they died.
  • Footage of men, women and children being hospitalized for severe burns. *Footage of helicopters launching streams of white fire explained as white phosphorus on an urban area the filmmakers say is Fallujah.
  • Interviews with civilians (translated from Arabic) explaining what itâ??s like to be in a white phosphorus attack.
Claims are also made that genetic deformities in children in Fallujah have arisen subsequent to white phosphorus attacks.

White phosphorus is a chemical by definition. If used as a weapon, that would make it a CHEMICAL WEAPON, wouldnâ??t it? Just by semantics alone â?? without even taking into account the horrific damage the weapon does â?? itâ??s obvious that it, like this whole cock-up of a war, should be outlawed.

Furthermore, if it wasnâ??t such a big deal, why would the Pentagon try to cover it up â?? why would they lie about it in the first place, as BBC reports that they did?

Similar chemicals, like napalm, have been banned, but the Pentagon finds ways of getting around bans by inventing new chemical compounds with similar effects and compositions but different names.

That the weapon was used is a horrific surprise. That the American government continues to lie unapologetically to its constituency is just as horrific, but no surprise.

Washington is not a signatory of the international treaty that bans the use of white phosphorus as a weapon. However, the US is a signatory of the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)
Adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts.
The part IV of this protocol, on itâ??s chapters I, II and III provides a rule for the protection of the civilian population (chapter II, articles 50 and 51) , civilian objects (chapter III articles 52 to 54) and the natural environment (chapter III, article 55).

On article 51, paragraph 4 we read:
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.



Hello Nic and Pisshead glad you are still raking thru their shit.... someboby has to have a voice of reason....
BlueCat00 Reviewed by BlueCat00 on . US defends use of white phosphorus against Iraq insurgents WASHINGTON (AFX) - The US today defended the use of white phosphorus munitions against insurgents in Iraq last year but denied civilians were targeted. The toxic agent was used during what a US army journal called 'shake and bake' missions against insurgents in the battle for Fallujah last year. 'It's part of our conventional weapons inventory. We use it like we use any other conventional weapon,' said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. Whitman said he had no knowledge of any Rating: 5