| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rok_the-boat
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RTB, you KNOW you shouldn't tease the pro-war people like that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Great. Just frickin' great. If this proves to be accurate information, an impeachment should begin forthwith. Last fricking straw. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh God, please let this be untrue.
For the Americans (no, sorry Americans, not you) if the American government, having claimed the moral high ground - justifiably in almost every respect - now have sunk again to the tactics of their unspeakable target, where does one turn for what is right and meet? France?
The Independent is usually pretty reliable on facts, but the wording here is a bit waffly for them "Powerful new evidence ... rumours have swirled .... Islaam online website ... US Government denied ... "
sheeeeeeeeeee ..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great article, i have a thread running with a documentary about the Falluja massacre and the use of chemical weapons with (unlike the pro-Bush, pro-war people) evidence!
Go here and see it:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=47302 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Great. Just frickin' great. If this proves to be accurate information, an impeachment should begin forthwith. Last fricking straw. |
Nah, for impeachment it seems you must be a dem doing something really bad in a cupboard with a consenting adult.
But wait, it wasn't that was it? It was the fact that he lied? Wasn't that the case? And weren't the repubs then saying that lying was high treason or some such thing?
There's an article in the Economist touching this very point .... damn, can't find it now but will dig it up later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon. Its classified like naplam. Gunpowder is a chemical compound but its not a chemical weapon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| and the UN outlawed the use of napalm against civilians in 1980, so this is still a crime against humanity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thats not the point. Phosphorus when used in as a flame or explosive material isn't a chemical weapon. Its a chemical and its a weapon but its not a chemical weapon. It also isn't banned from what I understand.
Its really nasty, we were warned about it in the military.
Last edited by dulouz on Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's the same stuff that tracer bullets are made from...
They were used a lot in Korea. The tracer would hit a body and burn for a good two minutes after it was inside.
Doesn't that sound fun? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with the use of phosphorus is not that it was used, but that it was just fired into the city indiscriminatly. The US military first claimed that they just used the chemical to light up the night sky to track insurgents but in the doc I linked to clearly shows US helicopters firing the weapon into the city without regard to civilians. The documentary also shows the corpses of women and children burned by the stuff. Phosphorus is not banned but napalm was after the vietnam war. Clearly phosphorus is a different material but it has much the same effect and for that reason it is disengeous (sp) for the US to use it against civilians.
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video/fallujah_ING.wmv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dulouz wrote: |
Thats not the point. Phosphorus when used in as a flame or explosive material isn't a chemical weapon. Its a chemical and its a weapon but its not a chemical weapon. It also isn't banned from what I understand.
Its really nasty, we were warned about it in the military. |
Phosphorous used with the intent to harm/kill is a chemical weapn. Used PURELY to light the way, fine. But the claim in the article is that it was used as a weapon. The use is what defines the weapon, not the form.
A ballpen is not a "lethal weapon" until intentionally used to kill, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| dulouz wrote: |
Thats not the point. Phosphorus when used in as a flame or explosive material isn't a chemical weapon. Its a chemical and its a weapon but its not a chemical weapon. It also isn't banned from what I understand.
Its really nasty, we were warned about it in the military. |
Phosphorous used with the intent to harm/kill is a chemical weapn. Used PURELY to light the way, fine. But the claim in the article is that it was used as a weapon. The use is what defines the weapon, not the form.
A ballpen is not a "lethal weapon" until intentionally used to kill, no? |
I disagree. The ACTUAL use is what defines a weapon, not some nebulous sounding "claim". I would like to see more evidence. The article also talks about a documentary which claims it has "clinching evidence" but doesn't say what it is |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| dulouz wrote: |
Thats not the point. Phosphorus when used in as a flame or explosive material isn't a chemical weapon. Its a chemical and its a weapon but its not a chemical weapon. It also isn't banned from what I understand.
Its really nasty, we were warned about it in the military. |
Phosphorous used with the intent to harm/kill is a chemical weapn. Used PURELY to light the way, fine. But the claim in the article is that it was used as a weapon. The use is what defines the weapon, not the form.
A ballpen is not a "lethal weapon" until intentionally used to kill, no? |
I disagree. The ACTUAL use is what defines a weapon, not some nebulous sounding "claim". I would like to see more evidence. The article also talks about a documentary which claims it has "clinching evidence" but doesn't say what it is |
Have fun pretending I didn't say what I did? Is it fun to just post crap for no reason? I mean, it is clear that what I posted about phosphorous was about the definition of weapons, not about the integrity of the article. I covered that in my original post on this thread. You see, personally I like to use a single word rather than an entire useless post to get the point across that the issue may or may not be true: if. Since I did use "if" in my original post (It hasn't disappeared, has it? Still there? Well, then...), I think I've already covered this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| dulouz wrote: |
Thats not the point. Phosphorus when used in as a flame or explosive material isn't a chemical weapon. Its a chemical and its a weapon but its not a chemical weapon. It also isn't banned from what I understand.
Its really nasty, we were warned about it in the military. |
Phosphorous used with the intent to harm/kill is a chemical weapn. Used PURELY to light the way, fine. But the claim in the article is that it was used as a weapon. The use is what defines the weapon, not the form.
A ballpen is not a "lethal weapon" until intentionally used to kill, no? |
I disagree. The ACTUAL use is what defines a weapon, not some nebulous sounding "claim". I would like to see more evidence. The article also talks about a documentary which claims it has "clinching evidence" but doesn't say what it is |
(1) Have fun pretending I didn't say what I did? Is it fun to just post crap for no reason? I mean,(2) it is clear that what I posted about phosphorous was about the definition of weapons, not about the integrity of the article. I covered that in my original post on this thread. You see, personally I like to use a single word rather than an entire useless post to get the point across that the issue may or may not be true: if. (3) Since I did use "if" in my original post (It hasn't disappeared, has it? Still there? Well, then...), I think I've already covered this. |
numbers are mine
1. What are you talking about?
(2) Did you or did you not say " But the CLAIM in the ARTICLE is that it was USED as a weapon. The USE is what defines the weapon not the form." (capitals are mine to draw attention to the subject matter).
3, Where is "if" in THIS post? Simply because you use a word in one post does not mean that all and any future posts will follow in the same vein. If new evidence came up, would you disregard it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
