Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Redstorm]
    #5128507 -

You implied that any chemical used as a weapon is a chemical weapon

The context of the argument was white phosphorous being used against people instead of as an incendiary device. It is the toxic effect of the white phosphourous on the human body that would define it as a chemical weapon.

He was just informing you that many weapons not classified as "Chemical Weapons" are created by or consist of various chemicals.

Then he's displaying a fundamental (and to be honest, quite breathtaking) lack of understanding of what a chemical weapon is. Here's some basic information:

Chemical weapons, as defined by the 1969 United Nations report entitled "Chemical and Bacteriological Weapons, and the Effect of Their Possible Use," are chemical agents of warfare taken to be chemical substances, whether gaseous, liquid, or solid, which might be employed because of their direct toxic effect on man, animals, and plants.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Alex213]
    #5128514 -

Alex213 said:
Yeah but that's when it's being used as an incendiary. When it's being used on people how can it not be considered a chemical weapon? It's a chemical and it's being used as a weapon.


You are stating a chemical used as a weapon against people is, ipso facto, a chemical weapon. Explosive bombs and bullets are made from chemicals just as much as white phosphorus. Phosphorus is an element. Lead is also an element. All elements are chemicals, although not all chemicals are elements. Ergo, by your reasoning, if phosphorus used against people is a chemical weapon then bullets fired against people are also chemical weapons.
I hope that elucidates it well enough for you. You are presenting an absurd argument that breaks down badly under the most basic scrutiny.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5128524 -

if phosphorus used against people is a chemical weapon then bullets fired against people are also chemical weapons

You appear to lack even the most childish understanding of what a chemical weapon is.

Educate yourself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Alex213]
    #5128543 -

Quote:
You implied that any chemical used as a weapon is a chemical weapon

The context of the argument was white phosphorous being used against people instead of as an incendiary device. It is the toxic effect of the white phosphourous on the human body that would define it as a chemical weapon.


Incorrect. Phosphorus is an incendiary device even when used as a weapon.

(From Wikipedia)

"An incendiary device is a device or weapon designed to create a fire."

This includes the burning of a human being's body.

While I'm sure phosphorus is toxic to humans, it's primary purpose it create burns and fire, not poison the victim or damage the body's functions by means other than burns. Therefor, it is an incendiary device, not a chemical weapon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5128549 -

zappaisgod said:
Alex213 said:
Yeah but that's when it's being used as an incendiary. When it's being used on people how can it not be considered a chemical weapon? It's a chemical and it's being used as a weapon.


Just using your definition pal. You're the one who said that a chemical used as a weapon against people was a chemical weapon. Or are you now retracting that incredibly weak position?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5128709 -

This is actually old news, are u guys talkin about what happened in fallujah after the election?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Alex213]
    #5129035 -

Quote:
Chemical weapons, as defined by the 1969 United Nations report entitled "Chemical and Bacteriological Weapons, and the Effect of Their Possible Use," are chemical agents of warfare taken to be chemical substances, whether gaseous, liquid, or solid, which might be employed because of their direct toxic effect on man, animals, and plants.


Exactly. White phosphorus is not used for its toxicity and is, therefore, not a chemical weapon. Just like explosives are chemicals but they are not used for their toxicity. Is that so difficult to comprehend? You posted the definition and I don't think you even read it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Redstorm]
    #5130189 -

While I'm sure phosphorus is toxic to humans, it's primary purpose it create burns and fire, not poison the victim or damage the body's functions by means other than burns. Therefor, it is an incendiary device, not a chemical weapon.

Incorrect. There is a clear distinction between an incendiary device used to illuminate the battlefield and create smoke for camouflage and using it for it's toxic effect on the human body. White phosphorous isn't considered a weapon if it's being used an an incendiary capacity. If it's caustic effect on the human body is being utilised then it becomes a chemical weapon.

As the US ambassador stated "US forces do not use napalm or white phosphourous as weapons".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Catalysis]
    #5130201 -

Exactly. White phosphorus is not used for its toxicity

You do not appear to understand what we are talking about.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Alex213]
    #5130485 -

Quote:
You do not appear to understand what we are talking about.


You do not appear to understand the chemical nature of white phosphorus. At room temperature, it ignites upon contact with oxygen and burns tenaciously.

One cannot for example sprinkle white phosphorus onto the skin of someone and wait for it to eat into the skin as if it were sulfuric acid. For one thing, it is not corrosive, so if you were to try this experiment in an atmosphere lacking oxygen the phosphorus would just sit there on the person's skin. For another thing, since on the battlefield it is being used in the open air, it ignites the instant it is released from its mortar round or artillery shell or whatever other delivery vehicle is being used so it is quite literally impossible under these conditions to deliver non-burning powdered WP onto the skin of the targets.

A WP round is no more a chemical weapon than is a Molotov cocktail.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Phred]
    #5130704 -

so if you were to try this experiment in an atmosphere lacking oxygen the phosphorus would just sit there on the person's skin.

Presumably you have just done one of your infamous 2 minute google searches and come up with this utterly irrelevant peice of "information"?

A WP round is no more a chemical weapon than is a Molotov cocktail.


Source?

Back in the real world:

"WP is not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. 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."

- Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Alex213]
    #5130858 -

Quote:
A WP round is no more a chemical weapon than is a Molotov cocktail.


Source?


Common sense. The irritant effect of the phosphoric acid byproducts are insignificant compared to the incendiary use of WP. Just like the irritant effects of gasoline are insignificant if you get hit with a molotov cocktail. Thats why it is a legal weapon under international law. When used as a smoke device, the smoke is acidic but relatively harmless as well. Sure, you could die from it if you stand right over it and inhale the thick smoke but I don't think a battlefield death has ever been recorded from WP smoke.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Alex213]
    #5131026 -

Sorry, friend. You are incorrect.

Quote:
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure. [4] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed personnel because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone. In some cases, burns may be limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed. According to GlobalSecurity.org, quoted by "The Guardian", "White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries" [5] .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#Effects_of_exposure_to_WP_weapons

Quote:
Incendiary bombs are bombs designed to start fires or destroy sensitive equipment using materials such as napalm, thermite, or white phosphorus. Napalm proper is no longer used by the United States although the similar Mark 77 bomb is currently in use.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_bomb

Edited by Redstorm (01/02/06 12:36 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Redstorm]
    #5131175 -

Quote:
The MK-77 is the primary incendiary weapon currently in use by the United States military. Instead of the gasoline and the benzene fuel used in napalm, MK-77 use kerosene-based fuel, which has a lower concentration of benzene. The Pentagon has claimed that the MK-77 has less impact on the environment than napalm. The mixture reportedly also contains an oxidizing agent, white phosphorus, making it more difficult to put out once ignited [1] [2].

The effects of MK-77 bombs are so similar to those of napalm that even many members of the US military continue to refer to them as "napalm" bombs in informal situations. (The official designation of Vietnam-era napalm bombs was the Mark 47.)



From wikipedia.

It seems to me like this weapon seems so close to napalm... Napalm is banned. To me it looks like a huge argument over semantics. Its a fact this weapon has been used in Iraq in Falluja, doubting whether it was used is ridiculous, however this weapon isnt stated in the Geneva convention as a chemical weapon. To me it sounds like a loophole but then again so is ordering spores off the internet.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Redstorm]
    #5131186 -

Quote:
Sorry, friend. You are incorrect

White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries


You appear to have confirmed my point.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #5131208 -

To me it sounds like a loophole

A loophole so tight the US is practically squeaking trying to squeeze through it  :smirk:

Protocol III of the UN's 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons expressly forbids the use of white phosphorus against civilian targets or military targets in civilian areas. The United States has not signed up to that protocol, although Britain has.

But America is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which it ratified in 1997, and that agreement forbids the use of any substance to kill or harm either soldiers or civilians if it is being used mostly for its toxicity.

Although the Pentagon spokesman described it as an "incendiary weapon", white phosphorus has clear chemical effects on its human targets - melting away the skin of its victims and burning quickly into the tissue, especially on exposed parts of the body like the face and hands.

A US Army handbook published in 1999 states clearly that the use of white phosphorus burster bombs against enemy personnel is "against the law of land warfare" and the US State Department clearly denied last year that any such weapons were being deployed in Iraq.

But an article in an internal US Army magazine provided incontrovertible evidence that such bombs were used against human targets in Fallujah and the Pentagon appears to have changed its mind on the precise legal status of the substance.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1875057,00.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Alex213]
    #5131223 -

Since you are incapable of comprehending elementary English, I'm not even going tp bother replying to you anymore. You are just as ignorant as the far-right posters here, and wouldn't change your opinion if proof or logic that shows otherwise slapped you in the face. Good riddance.

TheRedCrayon: Yes, I believe White Phosphorus is prohibited as a weapon under the Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. I wasn't arguing that White Phosphorus is any better than chemical weapons, b/c it still is horrendous. What I am trying to get through this person's skull is that WP is an incendiary, not a CW. Unfortunately, he is quite muddled, and can't tell this from that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Alex213]
    #5131240 -

But America is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which it ratified in 1997, and that agreement forbids the use of any substance to kill or harm either soldiers or civilians if it is being used mostly for its toxicity.

it's not being used for its toxicity. it is not a chemical weapon any more than other incendiaries like napalm, magnesium, and thermite (all of which are also toxic, but not used for their toxicity).

now, if it's being used in attacks targeting civilians, we've got a problem, but it's no different a problem than if the attacks employed thermite or magnesium.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Redstorm]
    #5131309 -

Since you are incapable of comprehending elementary English, I'm not even going tp bother replying to you anymore. You are just as ignorant as the far-right posters here, and wouldn't change your opinion if proof or logic that shows otherwise slapped you in the face. Good riddance

Are you upset? Or do you still think you are talking to your mother?

What I am trying to get through this person's skull is that WP is an incendiary, not a CW.

An incendiary is used to create smoke and for illumination on the battelfield. Not attacking personnel.

Say goodnight to the folks Gracie.. :rolleyes:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: U.S. Uses Chemical Weapons In Iraq [Re: Alex213]
    #5131328 -

I am getting quite irritated, b/c I am trying to explain something to you, but you will have no part of it.

Quote:
An incendiary is used to create smoke and for illumination on the battelfield. Not attacking personnel.


There are incendiary devices, and then there are incendiary weapons. Devices are what you are speaking of. They are utilities for brightening areas. Weapons, I'm sure you can imagine, are used to create burns on people caused by high levels of heat. If WP is being used to light up an area, it is a device, but if it is being used on people, it is a incendiary weapon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Bags   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Syria using chemical weapons in Sudan zip 663 1 10/10/04 09:37 AM
by Great_Satan
* A historical perspective on the US and chemical weapons
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 3,301 28 04/07/03 06:02 PM
by Ellis Dee
* Chemical Weapons. Anonymous 1,193 12 03/26/03 03:39 AM
by flow
* U.S. tested chemical weapons on own citizens phreakyzen 1,515 9 04/29/03 04:36 PM
by Azmodeus
* No chemical weapons found? vaporbrains 643 3 04/17/03 04:11 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Suspicious shells found in southern Iraq
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 1,891 23 01/16/04 03:05 PM
by Xlea321
* Support US war on IRAQ
( 1 2 all )		 LordMorham 4,856 29 09/20/02 09:56 AM
by LordMorham
* Arming Iraq and the Path to War dee_N_ae 1,089 3 04/18/03 09:10 PM
by JohnnyRespect

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,197 topic views. 2 members, 3 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 18 queries.