Quantcast

White Phosphorus? MK77? Napalm?

Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by enkidu, Nov 8, 2005.

  1. enkidu

    enkidu Guest

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / N/A
    #1 -   Nov 8, 2005

    Please register to disable this ad.

  2. Toshi

    Toshi Harbinger of Doom

    Rep/Likes:
    180 / 1,326
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    24,459
    seriously. how in the world can this be justified?
     
    #2 -   Nov 8, 2005
  3. Changleen

    Changleen Paranoid Member

    Rep/Likes:
    1 / 4
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    9,890
    Location:
    Hypernormality
  4. Tenchiro

    Tenchiro Attention K Mart Shoppers

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,407
    Location:
    New England
    Isn't that Viet Nam?
     
    #4 -   Nov 8, 2005
  5. DRB

    DRB unemployed bum

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    15,287
    Location:
    Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
    I so forgot the bees with naplam post. I still laugh at that.

    MK77 is simply the name for the 750lbs napalm bomb. Its been used since Korea so its not new. I doubt seriously that it was used as it would have basically melted an entire city block. It was used in the first gulf war to set fire to the oil filled trenches. (Never quite figured out why we had to set them on fire). Anyhoo,

    I suspect that someone decided that using WP was a good idea because of the fear aspect. I can't imagine a worse weapon to try and use in urban warfare. The only use I could imagine would be to use it to create smoke screens for concealment. If someone went slap happy it could have made a big fat mess that stuff is ruthless.

    I wish that they indicated numbers of casualities because that would give some idea of the extent of use. If its widespread that would certainly mean something different than if it was a few.
     
    #5 -   Nov 8, 2005
  6. Changleen

    Changleen Paranoid Member

    Rep/Likes:
    1 / 4
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    9,890
    Location:
    Hypernormality
    Supposedly there are a lot of these photos. The few I've seen would indicate the effect was fairly widespred. There is one long shot down a street and there are burned bodies inthe foreground and similar corpses into the far distance, at least 3 or 4 blocks. The reports at the time also said the use was widespread, and there are reports of both plane based and artillery use. I doubt a shell could cause that scale of damage without destroying buildings right? It seems more likely it would have been dropped to me.
     
    #6 -   Nov 8, 2005
  7. ALEXIS_DH

    ALEXIS_DH Tirelessly Awesome

    Rep/Likes:
    18 / 103
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,271
    Location:
    Lima, Peru, Peru
    can you consider that a "weapon of mass destruction"????
    that´d be quite the irony....
     
    #7 -   Nov 8, 2005
  8. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
    This coming from someone who thinks a crusie missile hit the world towers and the pentagon.. :p
     
    #8 -   Nov 8, 2005
  9. Changleen

    Changleen Paranoid Member

    Rep/Likes:
    1 / 4
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    9,890
    Location:
    Hypernormality
    Who are you addressing?
     
    #9 -   Nov 8, 2005
  10. BurlyShirley

    BurlyShirley Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 1
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Messages:
    19,210
    Location:
    TN
    Yeah big deal. We napalmed some folks. Next topic please.
     
  11. Changleen

    Changleen Paranoid Member

    Rep/Likes:
    1 / 4
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    9,890
    Location:
    Hypernormality
    Next Topic: "Jihadi group explodes nuclear device in downtown Labia Minora in retaliation for use of illegal weapons against residents of Falluja."
     
  12. BurlyShirley

    BurlyShirley Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 1
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Messages:
    19,210
    Location:
    TN
    Next topic: Mushroom cloud rises from assrapestan.
     
  13. Changleen

    Changleen Paranoid Member

    Rep/Likes:
    1 / 4
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    9,890
    Location:
    Hypernormality
    What a positive exchange that was. Now the residents of Labia Minora and Assrapeistan are all dead. Butfukistan isn't too happy about the situation either. In fact they're funding a state sponsored, well backed terrorist group in the US to avenge Assrapeistan's new glass parking lot.
     
  14. Transcend

    Transcend My Nuts Are Flat

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    18,062
    Location:
    Towing the party line.
    Since when is willie pete classified as a checmical weapon? I mean using it isn't the greatest thing on earth in fact it is banned at the geneva conventions, even againts millitary targets i believe), but way to over dramatize a situation.

    OMG chemical weapons!!!! Some of the euro news agencies are just as biased as fox.
     
  15. Changleen

    Changleen Paranoid Member

    Rep/Likes:
    1 / 4
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    9,890
    Location:
    Hypernormality
    :think:
     
  16. Jorvik

    Jorvik Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    6 / 0
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    817
    Location:
    I honestly don't know anymore.
    They broke the rules first. And there has never been a conflict since the first convention in which either side has followed the Geneva Conventions completly.

    I say let them burn.
     
  17. enkidu

    enkidu Guest

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / N/A
    Nobody is claiming that world towers were not attacked by airplanes. But the pentagon case is different.

    Have you seriously checked the pictures of pentagon attack, N8? ("911 in Plane Site" DVD, for example, has well documented clippings of CNN, Fox News and many other primary sources from that day, September 11th.) The small aperture of the initial impact (about 16 Ft), the lack of explosion upon impact, and the lack of wreckage of a large airplane (44 Ft x 125 Ft of Boeing from tip to tip of the wings and rudder) all do point to a different sort of attack.
     
  18. enkidu

    enkidu Guest

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / N/A
    Oops, sorry, I should have searched. At least the Italian documentary is a new addition. And perhaps the worst effect of this prolonged act of aggression on American psyche is the callousness and apathy towards the use of such weapons to "others". . . even when we profess to love verdant beautiful nature and trails.
     
  19. Trond

    Trond Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    4 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    288
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    "You" dropped the first a-bomb, does it justify someone else to use it on you?
     
  20. enkidu

    enkidu Guest

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / N/A
    No. We, USA, broke the rules first.

    Not a single Iraqi harmed an American until Bush & Co. unleashed the "shock and awe" massively murderous attacks.

    Lies were used to whip up American appetite for the war of aggression, when in fact the ruling Neocons / Likudnicks / Religious Rights were, and still are, methodically executing the blue print of "the principle of preemption" promoted as early as 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz and submitted to and accepted by the Israeli Likud government by R. Perle, D. Feith and D. Wurmser in 1996. They were, and still are, the core members governing Dick Chaney's office.

    We have to remember that not all Christians and Jews, and in fact most Muslems as well, are power-hungry callous empire seekers.

    Just as within a family we have to learn to reconcile and love for the whole family to thrive. We need each other. We can do so much when we learn to nurture and support each other. Going around burning up people, animals, trees and all other living creatures with weapons like Napalm and nuke is NOT the way it should be IMHO.
     
  21. BurlyShirley

    BurlyShirley Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 1
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Messages:
    19,210
    Location:
    TN
    Whatever Dr. Phil. This is a debate about Napalm, not the war. And its not even really napalm. Its geneva convention approved napalm with bees. Its legal.
    Now go rinse off that patchouli.
     
  22. DRB

    DRB unemployed bum

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    15,287
    Location:
    Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
    I haven't seen the pictures so its really hard to say. I have seen MK77s used before and they are pretty spectacular and very destructive. I suspect that if it had been napalm the street would be pretty much burned to the ground. In an urban warfare setting it is just unlikely they actually used napalm.

    Now most WP shells would be airburst so its possible you would see little or no detonation damage. One shell could cause quite a lot of casualties if there were a lot of exposed people under it.

    Again the number of casualities and the spread of them would go a long way in indicating what actually happened and what the intent might have been.
     
  23. Reactor

    Reactor Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    6 / 1
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,978
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ, USA
    I seriously doubt it can be, at least by anyone with a shred of empathy.
     
  24. Transcend

    Transcend My Nuts Are Flat

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    18,062
    Location:
    Towing the party line.
    C'mon man it's the US Govt...they don't routinely use their heads. I am not saying using willie pete is good. What I am saying is that the left wing media outlets who called them "chemical weapons" simply to cause outrage, is wrong.

    Call it what it is, white phosphorous. It is NOT a chemical agent. The US Govt, while burning innocent civilians, is not gassing entire villages.
     
  25. H8R

    H8R Cranky Pants

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 4
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    13,983
    (11-15) 15:02 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --

    Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November. But they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material was used against civilians.

    Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.

    "It was not used against civilians," Venable said.

    The spokesman referred reporters to an article in the March-April 2005 edition of the Army's Field Artillery magazine, an official publication, in which veterans of the Fallujah fight spelled out their use of white phosphorous and other weapons. The authors used the shorthand "WP" in referring to white phosphorous.

    "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the authors wrote. "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high explosive)" munitions.

    "We fired `shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

    The authors added, in citing lessons for future urban battles, that fire-support teams should have used another type of smoke bomb for screening missions in Fallujah "and saved our WP for lethal missions."

    The battle for Fallujah was the most intense and deadly fight of the war, after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. The city, about 35 miles west of Baghdad on the Euphrates River, was a key insurgent stronghold. The authors of the "after action" report said they encountered few civilians in their area of operations.

    Italian communists held a sit-in Monday in front of the U.S. Embassy in Rome to protest the reported use by American troops of white phosphorous. Italy's state-run RAI24 news television aired a documentary last week alleging the U.S. used white phosphorous shells in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians during the Fallujah offensive.

    The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorous against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

    The department later said its statement had been incorrect.

    "There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."

    Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.

    White phosphorous is a colorless-to-yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military ignites once it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh.
     
  26. DRB

    DRB unemployed bum

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    15,287
    Location:
    Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
    Now that sounds about right.
     
  27. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
    Willie Pete is not a banned weapon so what's the big deal? Does it kill people deader or something?
     
  28. ohio

    ohio The Fresno Kid

    Rep/Likes:
    6 / 4
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2001
    Messages:
    6,657
    Location:
    SF, CA
    Dude, it smells like garlic. Would you want to die smelling like garlic? I didn't think so.
     
  29. Toshi

    Toshi Harbinger of Doom

    Rep/Likes:
    180 / 1,326
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    24,459
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4441902.stm

    and given that it's not banned because the US conveniently didn't sign a treaty using the "it's not illegal! honest!" line is a WEAK excuse. <-- edited for propur englishe
     
  30. N8 v2.0

    N8 v2.0 Not the sharpest tool in the shed

    Rep/Likes:
    17 / 149
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,008
    Location:
    The Cleft of Venus
  31. The Amish

    The Amish Dumber than N8

    Rep/Likes:
    0 / 0
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    645
    Rules of war. What nonsense. Us casualties probably wouldnt even break the double digits if we didn't have to folow those stupid things. At the end of the day the only thing that matters is winners and losers. If your gonna go to war, kick ass, take names, and bring the boys home. The world couldn't handle the damage we're capable of doing. Display it once and I doubt these sand rats would be in a hurry to f#*k with us again. Look how japan kisses our ass. Thats the power of fear
     
  32. DRB

    DRB unemployed bum

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    15,287
    Location:
    Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
    Its not banned because of the US not signing it, its not banned because its not banned by that treaty. From the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

     
  33. Toshi

    Toshi Harbinger of Doom

    Rep/Likes:
    180 / 1,326
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    24,459
    from same article

     
  34. fluff

    fluff Monkey Turbo

    Rep/Likes:
    3 / 0
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2001
    Messages:
    5,672
    Location:
    Feeling the lag
    Given what the adminstration has said (according to the quote earlier) it doesn't fall within the caveats of incidental incendiary effects to any reasonable understanding. If it is used deliberately as an anti-personnel weapon any effects on those personnel are not incidental.
     
  35. DRB

    DRB unemployed bum

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    15,287
    Location:
    Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
    Using incendiary weapons as an anti-personnel weapons against military targets are NOT prohibitied by the 1980 Protocol.
     
  36. fluff

    fluff Monkey Turbo

    Rep/Likes:
    3 / 0
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2001
    Messages:
    5,672
    Location:
    Feeling the lag
    Then of what was your quote apropos?
     
  37. Reactor

    Reactor Turbo Monkey

    Rep/Likes:
    6 / 1
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,978
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ, USA
    We must speak different versions of English. It pretty clearly says using a weapon with an intended incendiary effect is verbotten.



    Dropping Willie Pete on people is far from "incidental incendiary effects" It's using a device against a person with an intended incendiary effect.
     
  38. DRB

    DRB unemployed bum

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    15,287
    Location:
    Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
    I mean to quote Toshi's response not yours.
     
  39. fluff

    fluff Monkey Turbo

    Rep/Likes:
    3 / 0
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2001
    Messages:
    5,672
    Location:
    Feeling the lag
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

    Quote:
    The debate about WP centres partly though not wholly on whether it is really a chemical weapon. Such weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party.

    The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

    "No it's 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."
     
  40. DRB

    DRB unemployed bum

    Rep/Likes:
    5 / 0
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    15,287
    Location:
    Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
    Really? Again its use against military targets is not prohibited.