WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines usa used white phosphore against civilians in Iraq

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#1
usa used white phosphorus against civilians in Iraq

Italian tv (RAI) announced that USA has used white phosphorus, and napalm-like "mark 77"-type petrolbombs against civilians in Iraq in 2004. It´s evidence was a clip from Falluja from November 2004, where childs and women had suffered from severe burns. It also interviewed US soldiers that said that white phosphorus was indeed used. (Jeff Englehart, probably an alias).

White phosphorus causes severe burns that can reach to the bone.
Napalm and other petrolbombs were banned in the Geneva convention in 1980. USA has not joined the contract.

These are seen as weapons of mass destruction.

-EDIT:phosphore to phosphorus
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#2
Ummm, just because civilians were injured, doesn't mean they intentionally used it against them. It is war, civilians are caught in the cross-fire.

Where is the proof of intentional use?

I'm not surprised by anything this Administration does, but I'd hate to believe THAT.

I think the bar needs to be higher then - civilians were hurt...
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#3
They used white phosphorus and napalm-like substances. If they use it, it´s intentional. It´s not like "Geee, Jim, you got em with you? Well heck, lets ditch our moral and throw them in."
The same went on in Vietnam.. Civilian villages were bombed with Napalm.

I´m guessing this is not on the news in USA?

I say this is major, even if the USA has not ratified the Geneva convention. Still.. It pretty much rationalizes the "moral of war". And this is against it. As much as torture, or the shit in Guontanamo
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
262
302
#4
RetArt you are under the mistaken impression that Americans give a shit. America operates under one principle, and I discovered it. The "Twinkie Defense."

The Twinkie Defense is simple and effective. As long as Average Joe american can drive to the store and get a twinkie when they want to, all is good in life. Kill 1000's of Iraqi women and children with napalm, whatever. Ban same sex unions, whatever. Have torture camps for people our govt doesn't like, who cares. I got my twinkie, and life is good.

Sure they may give lip service, and even seem passionate about things, but until it effects them personally, it matters little. It's a news blurb.

Sad but TRUE.
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#5
Bread and circus? :)
That´s not that new an idea. Orwell said doublethink.
As long as people have their soap-operas and cheerios, they do not act. They have no need to think, as their values are blurred by the constant numbing entertainment and propaganda. Manufacturing consent.
Western world is turning into a herd of arrogant, selfish, broad-viewed zombies. Who gives a fuck about Ruanda etc. if we have our "Days of our lives"? When they stopped making "friends" millions cried, but when innocent civilians are bombed with wmd´s in Falluja we tend to change the channel. What does not concern me is irrelevant. What people fail to see is that everything affects everything. They see 9/11 as a horrible, criminal act, but fail to see the cause, the facts that made it eventually bound to happen sooner or later.
Imperialism, cash crops, capitalism, not caring, all lead to this.

911 was not the cause, it was the effect.

And I think tat we will see much more of this due to the recent actions of the certain country.
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#6
RetArt said:
They used white phosphore and napalm-like substances. If they use it, it´s intentional. It´s not like "Geee, Jim, you got em with you? Well heck, lets ditch our moral and throw them in."
The same went on in Vietnam.. Civilian villages were bombed with Napalm.

I´m guessing this is not on the news in USA?

I say this is major, even if the USA has not ratified the Geneva convention. Still.. It pretty much rationalizes the "moral of war". And this is against it. As much as torture, or the shit in Guontanamo
You are not hearing what I am saying.

They may have used those weapons. We HAVE WMD's. The US does not consider them forbidden. We just don't want others to have them...

The question is whether we used them "intenionally" against civillians? The "proof" you offered is weak and unsubstaintiated with hard facts. That's probably why it's not in the US news.

What does torture have to do with the use of these chemicals in a war setting?
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#7
How can they use them unintentionally? White phosphore was used to light areas in previous wars, but as they were seen "wrong" they were replaced with cheapaer, better ones. Now they are internationally seen as weapons, not lighting-means. Napalm is only used as a weapon. It is inhumane.
USA is so hypocrite.
That´s like the same if they say that the plane that hit wtc was not meant to hurt civilians, it was aimed to destroy a computer database on the 48th floor. It does not make it any more right, does it?

Torture is to do with because, the chemicals cause a slow and horrible death to civilians. And also because it is another show from US hypocracy. You cannot torture but we wish to have this right.
As with everything.

I hear what you are saying. I just see this causing civilian casualties by means that are not needed nor appropriate
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#8
RetArt said:
How can they use them unintentionally? White phosphore was used to light areas in previous wars, but as they were seen "wrong" they were replaced with cheapaer, better ones. Now they are internationally seen as weapons, not lighting-means. Napalm is only used as a weapon. It is inhumane.
USA is so hypocrite.
That´s like the same if they say that the plane that hit wtc was not meant to hurt civilians, it was aimed to destroy a computer database on the 48th floor. It does not make it any more right, does it?

Torture is to do with because, the chemicals cause a slow and horrible death to civilians. And also because it is another show from US hypocracy. You cannot torture but we wish to have this right.
As with everything.

I hear what you are saying. I just see this causing civilian casualties by means that are not needed nor appropriate
Intentionally against a millitary target?

OR

Intentionally against Civilians?


That is the question. Where is the proof that they intentionally tried to hurt Civilians? I don't see it.

Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions.

Pain and agony will result from being subject to a chemical attack, but it's not "torture" as it is used in regard to detaining prisoners.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

Anytime you go to war you are throwing "humanity" out the window...
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#9
well, yes. But war "should" be waged so that inhumane cruelties to civilians are at a minimum. One cannot justify the deaths of thousands of civilians by saying that it was to kill the enemy, or for some greater good. If some action is done by the knowledge it is going to ALSO kill a number of innocent civilians they should find another means.
I am contrasting this to torture because it is as much against the moral and the international laws (which of course do not concern the high almighty US of A) And yet you do both. In the name of spreading democracy and peace.
 

OmegaZeto

Eyeless Pilot
713
0
0
#10
RetArt said:
well, yes. But war "should" NEVER be waged so that inhumane cruelties to HUMANS are NONEXISTANT. One cannot justify the death of A SINGLE HUMAN FOR ANY REASON. If some action is done by the knowledge it is going to KILL ANYONE AT ALL they should find another means.
Caps editing is mine. Read it twice.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#11
Oh well...

In World War II the German SS Troups didn't have the intention to shoot 200 American POW's while the Battle of The Bulge was raging in the Belgian Ardennes.
Those poor men just happened to be in front of a machine gun, that was just practicing a bit. :eek:

One can't have scrambled eggs without breaking them.

</sarcasm>
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#12
As much as I hate this war I'd like to see confirmation of this story from a new agency that has previously shown an incredible bias against the US and the war in Iraq. As I recall this same news source also employed the Itallian reporter who was kidnapped and then later clamed that the US deliberately shot at her and killed an Itallian negotiator because we were mad that Italy paid the ransom.

While despicable if true, this particular news source is about as trust worthy as George W. Bush.
 

void

Banned - What an Asshat!
4,126
0
0
#13
UberSkippy said:
As much as I hate this war I'd like to see confirmation of this story from a new agency that has previously shown an incredible bias against the US and the war in Iraq. As I recall this same news source also employed the Itallian reporter who was kidnapped and then later clamed that the US deliberately shot at her and killed an Itallian negotiator because we were mad that Italy paid the ransom.

While despicable if true, this particular news source is about as trust worthy as George W. Bush.
i don't know if this helps but i searched white phosphor iraq and got these results.. i haven't checked them all for source so it may be that they all stem from the same origianl story. google news had only two results.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&rls=HPID,HPID:2005-16,HPID:en&q=white+phosphor+iraq&spell=1
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,979
1,397
487
#14
RetArt said:
I´m guessing this is not on the news in USA?

I say this is major, even if the USA has not ratified the Geneva convention. Still.. It pretty much rationalizes the "moral of war". And this is against it. As much as torture, or the shit in Guontanamo
Incendiary weapons are allowed by Geneva conventions.
 
#15
voiceofreason said:
They may have used those weapons. We HAVE WMD's. The US does not consider them forbidden. We just don't want others to have them...
So very true. Like a big, fat, rich kid, with more toys he could play with in a year, but any kid in the playground with a toy, he beats up.:gun:


Oh, and it's WHITE PHOSPHORUS, not PHOSPHORE OR PHOSPHOR.

void said:
i don't know if this helps but i searched white phosphor iraq and got these results.. i haven't checked them all for source so it may be that they all stem from the same origianl story. google news had only two results.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&rls=HPID,HPID:2005-16,HPID:en&q=white+phosphor+iraq&spell=1
Change to "phosphorus" and then click on Images.
 

skully

GO BEARS!!!!
1,415
0
0
#17
voiceofreason said:
Intentionally against a millitary target?

OR

Intentionally against Civilians?


QUOTE]

Even torturing millitary personnel is not justified. 911 was a effect, not a cause.
Most people are ignorant to the fact that usa ruins millions of lives so that its citizens can live like kings. the war on iraq showed just that. USA
is a hypocritic nation. Who are they to say that saddam should not have weapons of mass destruction and N.Korea should be disallowed of their nuclear arms when they have tweapons of mass destruction themselves. Yhsi is a plot for a long time world domination. i wouldnt sa that the past presidents were much better than bush, because alol they seemed to care was about world domination. They harm a country, it going to get back to them. Its only a matter of time that US will bear the brunt of attacks and will be a war ravaged country. the same happened to England. People dont seem to understand that you can do something bad that will go unpunnished. Everything evens out in the end. Look at england now, it fucking lap dog of us. Its a weak peace of shit. he same is going to hapen to the USA, and athe countries who try to dominate after them. Its impossible to dominate the world forever, one day the wold will stick the finger in your face and theb tll be a sad day.



StopGrammarRape said:
So very true. Like a big, fat, rich kid, with more toys he could play with in a year, but any kid in the playground with a toy, he beats up.:gun:


Oh, and it's WHITE PHOSPHORUS, not PHOSPHORE OR PHOSPHOR.



Change to "phosphorus" and then click on Images.
fyi it is phosphor dipshit
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,979
1,397
487
#18

skully

GO BEARS!!!!
1,415
0
0
#19
junglizm said:
Fyi, you are wrong; It IS phosphorus.

Phosphorus is a basic element, of which White Phosphorus is an allotrope. Phosphor is a generic term used to describe materials that exhibit phosphorescent properties. Phosphorus is not even technically considered to be a phosphor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor

Also, don't flame in this forum.
A phosphor is a substance that exhibits the phenomenon of phosphorescence (sustained glowing without further stimulus).

phosphorus isnt the only substance that shows the property of phosphorence.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,979
1,397
487
#20
skullmaster said:
A phosphor is a substance that exhibits the phenomenon of phosphorescence (sustained glowing without further stimulus).

phosphorus isnt the only substance that shows the property of phosphorence.
Technically phosphorus doesn't exhibit phosphorescent qualities, since it ignites when it touches oxygen.

I fail to see what the rest of you post is about though, since you basically just repeated what I already said. At any rate, you are still wrong - it's white phosphorus.