|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 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? |
You wrote a post that said what had already been said. I said using phosphorous as a weapon makes it a.... weapon! You said "actually" using phosphorous as a weapon makes it a... weapon!
In other words, you're just being pissy as far as I can tell.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| (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). |
I did indeed. So why do you pretend I didn't say how it is used defines the nature of a thing? Oh, that's right... IF they used it. Which I said in my first post.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 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? |
This thread... every thread... is like a conversation. (I can't believe you need this explained.) You don't erase everything that came before the latest full stop. Thus, since I acknowledged first off that the article may not be legit, BUT that if it were then heads should roll, it must follow anything I say after comes under the same conditional. Thus, the conditional need not be restated.
Then, with the previous posts in place, I chose to respond to the intellectual/philosophical issue of whether the use of phosphorus constituted being a weapon and/or chemical weapon. Now, he's saying it's not a "chemical weapon", but doesn't say why. This I find to be hair splitting to the Nth degree. He would have to be claiming that no chemical of any kind was used in making the shell/bomb/incindiary.... whatever. While possible, I guess, highly unlikely.
But, OK, let's just call it a phosphorus weapon. Semantics. Very few people are going to make a distinction between mustard gas, napalm and phosphorus.
Then you pop in and say IF it was used.... Uh... yeah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Very few people are going to make a distinction between mustard gas, napalm and phosphorus. |
Oh yeah...
Very few people, except for, let's say, ummm...
Everyone.
Comparing phosphorus to mustard gas and napalm is a stretch, even for Daechidong Waygookin.
Check Wikipedia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Very few people are going to make a distinction between mustard gas, napalm and phosphorus. |
Oh yeah...
Very few people, except for, let's say, ummm...
Everyone.
Comparing phosphorus to mustard gas and napalm is a stretch, even for Daechidong Waygookin.
Check Wikipedia |
Sounds like Jack Handy:
| Quote: |
| I remember that time when we were just out hanging and then suddenly we all got hit with Napalm. We were all writhing on the ground, our flesh burning away, screaming "Napalm! Napalm!" Wouldn't you know it, smart-aleck John had to have the last word this time too. "Hey guys, it's white phosphorus, stupid." He laughed but we always heard that kind of thing from him and we didn't like being made to feel dumb especially at a time like that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right on the money, Jack- er, uh- Mith.
If naplam were used the same way that WP apparently has been in this incident (emphasis on apparently), what would be the reaction?
Is the level of outrage different between indescriminant use of conventional weapons in urban centres and residential neighborhoods vs. use of chemical weapons?
Assuming the reports are true, is this really the case where you want the defense of the action to be "well, we thought it was okay because we weren't using chemical weapons, technically speaking- it was just some naplam and WP"?
Personally I'm going to put a hold on my outrage until there is more evidence one way or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A thread from almost a year ago ...
Fallujah |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Sounds like Jack Handy |
Gosh, you know your argument's airtight when you can fins support from...
Jack Handy?
Mustard Gas- Uses - Killing people in a horrific manner.
Napalm-Uses-Killing people in a horrific manner.
White phosporus-Uses-Agricultural fertilizer, luminary devices, killing people in a horrific manner, and smoke bombs.
I'm just saying that I would think that if the US was using it as a chemical weapon wouldn't Al Jizera(?) be all over it?
However... I did see this:
Wikipedia-
"Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [1] The United States is among the nations that have not signed this protocol.
Doesn't that make it OK for us to use? 
Joking people... Joking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps you were joking, but many people wouldn't be. It's a travesty we haven't signed so many protocols and conventions that would, outwardly at least, seem to be completely in line with American values... why is that?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chemical weapons are chemicals used as weapons that destroy and harm by means other than gunpowder like destruction. Mustard gas caused blindness via bio-chemical reaction. It did not explode and or burn with fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Very few people are going to make a distinction between mustard gas, napalm and phosphorus. |
Oh yeah...
Very few people, except for, let's say, ummm...
Everyone.
Comparing phosphorus to mustard gas and napalm is a stretch, even for Daechidong Waygookin.
Check Wikipedia |
Excellent post |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Saying phosphorus is OK to use because it is not a "chemical" weapon is ridiculous. Especially so given the following:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chemical+bomb
| Quote: |
Noun 1. chemical bomb - a bomb laden with chemical agents that are released when the bomb explodes
gas bombbomb - an explosive device fused to denote under specific conditions
chemical weapon - chemical substances that can be delivered using munitions and dispersal devices to cause death or severe harm to people and animals and plants |
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Phosphorus+
| Quote: |
| Phosphorus, (from the Greek language Phosphoros meaning "light bearing"), is the chemical element in the periodic table that has the symbol P and atomic number 15. A multivalent, nonmetal of the nitrogen group, phosphorus is commonly found in inorganic phosphate rocks and in all living cells. Due to its high reactivity, it is never found as a free element in nature. It emits a faint glow upon exposure to oxygen (hence its name, Latin for 'morning star', from Greek words meaning 'light' and 'bring'), occurs in several allotropic forms, and is an essential element for living organisms. The most important commercial use of phosphorus is in the production of fertilizers. It is also widely used in explosives, friction matches, fireworks, pesticides, toothpaste, and detergents. |
So, my babies: Phosphorus is a chemical. It is possibly being used as a weapon. If so, it must then be classifiable as a chemical weapon. To say otherwise is silly argumentation and nothing more.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| So, my babies: Phosphorus is a chemical. It is possibly being used as a weapon. If so, it must then be classifiable as a chemical weapon. To say otherwise is silly argumentation and nothing more. |
Phosphorus is an element. White Phosphorus is a chemical compound made from phosphorus.
Iron is an element. Steel is a chemical compound made from iron.
Does that mean that everyone who has been stabbed by a sword has died by a chemical weapon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I knew this guy who was a botanist, and he always imported seeds of psychedelic plants that weren't illegal because the government wasn't aware of their existence. Still just as strong and often stronger than magic mushrooms.
Lalalalalala I can't hear you it's not a drug because nobody passed a law saying that it is and using chemicals as weapons to kill people doesn't count as chemical weapons because they're not part of treaty x oh and when aliens come in and spray the Earth with their own chemical formula homaro-omna-ocido-kemikala-benzaninaricide not available on Earth it's not a chemical weapon because they didn't sign the Convention on Chemical Weapons and actually you should be precise about definitions lalalalalala |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
I knew this guy who was a botanist, and he always imported seeds of psychedelic plants that weren't illegal because the government wasn't aware of their existence. Still just as strong and often stronger than magic mushrooms.
Lalalalalala I can't hear you it's not a drug because nobody passed a law saying that it is and using chemicals as weapons to kill people doesn't count as chemical weapons because they're not part of treaty x oh and when aliens come in and spray the Earth with their own chemical formula homaro-omna-ocido-kemikala-benzaninaricide not available on Earth it's not a chemical weapon because they didn't sign the Convention on Chemical Weapons and actually you should be precise about definitions lalalalalala |
Excellent post |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
I knew this guy who was a botanist, and he always imported seeds of psychedelic plants that weren't illegal because the government wasn't aware of their existence. Still just as strong and often stronger than magic mushrooms.
Lalalalalala I can't hear you it's not a drug because nobody passed a law saying that it is and using chemicals as weapons to kill people doesn't count as chemical weapons because they're not part of treaty x oh and when aliens come in and spray the Earth with their own chemical formula homaro-omna-ocido-kemikala-benzaninaricide not available on Earth it's not a chemical weapon because they didn't sign the Convention on Chemical Weapons and actually you should be precise about definitions lalalalalala |
Excellent post |
Indeed.
I know... Now we're just arguing semantics... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| Phosphorus is an element. White Phosphorus is a chemical compound made from phosphorus. |
It's a chemical element.
Regarding Mith's posts and your responses to his vs. mine: Suggest you do some thinking on why you'd rather play stupid word games with someone you don't like than just discuss the issues. Further suggest you consider what this micro level action might tell us about the macro level crap we see going on in the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
