US used Chemical weapons in Iraq
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pot to kettle...
quote:
Since when has surrounding a town, ordering the occupants to leave - except "males of military age" - and pounding it with explosive and incendiary artillery been proportionate?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see, so the tactics against the MLA during the "Emergency," or in Yemen, or Aden, or several other post-WWII contingencies were perfectly fine (including the use of WP), but because the "US of A" does it, it is automatically bad.
Hmmm.......
Since when has surrounding a town, ordering the occupants to leave - except "males of military age" - and pounding it with explosive and incendiary artillery been proportionate?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see, so the tactics against the MLA during the "Emergency," or in Yemen, or Aden, or several other post-WWII contingencies were perfectly fine (including the use of WP), but because the "US of A" does it, it is automatically bad.
Hmmm.......
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brickhistory - I don't think its a matter of comparing our colonial wars to your escapades. The 'War on Terror' and it's ofspring
'The War On What We Think Saddam Has' - has always been
based on the principles that Saddam used chemical weapons against civilians - developed WMD's and tortured people.
The coallition so far seems to be keen on ticking all the boxes - torture has happened by the U.S and U.K - White Phosperous rounds certainly appear to have been used without
proper thought of the consequences - all we are lacking to rival
Saddam is WMD's .
We are fighting some really nasty people- the secret is to either admit that we have to become barbaric to fight on their terms or decide it's time to leave.
'The War On What We Think Saddam Has' - has always been
based on the principles that Saddam used chemical weapons against civilians - developed WMD's and tortured people.
The coallition so far seems to be keen on ticking all the boxes - torture has happened by the U.S and U.K - White Phosperous rounds certainly appear to have been used without
proper thought of the consequences - all we are lacking to rival
Saddam is WMD's .
We are fighting some really nasty people- the secret is to either admit that we have to become barbaric to fight on their terms or decide it's time to leave.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Riley,
I would think that some of your media and/or "other side" in some of your conflicts might disagree. BTW, I don't find fault with your conflicts, just the so tiresome "USA all bad, all the time" that runs through this forum so often. Surprising to me, perhaps I'm just simple......
While good natured ribbing is welcome, simply because one is from the US and even, gasp, serves in her military, does not make one comparable to Saddam and his regime (or other really nasty governments of past times).
For this thread, if we are at war (not if we should be or how we got there), then use what we have to to accomplish the mission and/or minimize our casualties. You'd be a piss-poor tactical commander if you didn't.
For your comments about 'ticking all the boxes - torture, using WP without thinking it through, blah, blah, blah:
War is a bloody business (Yeah, I know it's not original). Collateral damage, civilian deaths are to be avoided at all costs and NOBODY feels worse than the grunt or the aircrew that missed and took out mama and baby, but if it's war, it's gonna happen.
Torture? Name one conflict where it doesn't happen, however the acts of a few idiots forever smears the rest of the conflict. Hmm, Malmedy, some stuff in N. Ireland, May Lei (sp?), are all examples of things that shouldn't have happened, but humans being what they are, it's gonna. Not excusing it, but when the 24/7 newsies HAVE to fill the air, what's bad gets a lot of mileage.
Rant off.
I would think that some of your media and/or "other side" in some of your conflicts might disagree. BTW, I don't find fault with your conflicts, just the so tiresome "USA all bad, all the time" that runs through this forum so often. Surprising to me, perhaps I'm just simple......
While good natured ribbing is welcome, simply because one is from the US and even, gasp, serves in her military, does not make one comparable to Saddam and his regime (or other really nasty governments of past times).
For this thread, if we are at war (not if we should be or how we got there), then use what we have to to accomplish the mission and/or minimize our casualties. You'd be a piss-poor tactical commander if you didn't.
For your comments about 'ticking all the boxes - torture, using WP without thinking it through, blah, blah, blah:
War is a bloody business (Yeah, I know it's not original). Collateral damage, civilian deaths are to be avoided at all costs and NOBODY feels worse than the grunt or the aircrew that missed and took out mama and baby, but if it's war, it's gonna happen.
Torture? Name one conflict where it doesn't happen, however the acts of a few idiots forever smears the rest of the conflict. Hmm, Malmedy, some stuff in N. Ireland, May Lei (sp?), are all examples of things that shouldn't have happened, but humans being what they are, it's gonna. Not excusing it, but when the 24/7 newsies HAVE to fill the air, what's bad gets a lot of mileage.
Rant off.
Are any of the sensationalist media taking up the issue of civilian deaths, beheadings etc with the insurgents? Some in depth and embedded investigative journalism would make great reading.
Gentleman Aviator
DU is mostly used for its mass. It's nearly twice as dense as lead.
....... and I still managed to father 3 (fairly) normal children ...... that I know of!
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if WP is a chemical weapon and Saddam had WP............
Either that ligitimises GW2 for those who are still sulking about it, OR WP isn't a chemical weapon, in which case the whole story is 'a crock o' s*ite' as they say in the old country - which is it to be?
Either that ligitimises GW2 for those who are still sulking about it, OR WP isn't a chemical weapon, in which case the whole story is 'a crock o' s*ite' as they say in the old country - which is it to be?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article is a red-herring, persuing the angle of WP being chemical weapons. It clearly isn't.
The point is it emphasises the US not being a signatory to a weapons protocol, which while being quite within their rights, further degrades any pretense of holding a moral superiority.
No matter what the legal standing is, we have a weapon whose effects are little different from that of chemical weapons. How do we explain.
We abhore Saddam's use of chemical agents in Halabja, yet accept something far worse than a blistering agent being used indirectly into an urban environment?
Al Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency don't need to make up their propaganda, we create it for them.
The point is it emphasises the US not being a signatory to a weapons protocol, which while being quite within their rights, further degrades any pretense of holding a moral superiority.
No matter what the legal standing is, we have a weapon whose effects are little different from that of chemical weapons. How do we explain.
We abhore Saddam's use of chemical agents in Halabja, yet accept something far worse than a blistering agent being used indirectly into an urban environment?
Al Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency don't need to make up their propaganda, we create it for them.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is it to be then Dave?
Yes, Yanks using WP in Iraq is worse than Halabja
And of course, they are useing this CW stuff in direct fire against unarmed women and children - ooops, no, sorry, that was saddam again wasn't it?
Have a look at the ARRSE site for the views of people who actually work with the stuff.......
Yes, Yanks using WP in Iraq is worse than Halabja
And of course, they are useing this CW stuff in direct fire against unarmed women and children - ooops, no, sorry, that was saddam again wasn't it?
Have a look at the ARRSE site for the views of people who actually work with the stuff.......
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, never said it was worse than Halabja.
But is the distinction between the US and the insurgency simply "well, we do it, but the insurgency do it worse than we do"? Is that a distinction you are happy with?
As for your last point, yes, that is exactly what is achieved when you bomb an urban environment where people have not been allowed to escape.
You are trying to excuse the inexcusable.
The whole story is not a crock of sh1t for the reasons I gave. It is arguable that WP is a chemical weapon, but not likely to hold up really. The fact is, we use WP where civilian will get hit. Charming.
But is the distinction between the US and the insurgency simply "well, we do it, but the insurgency do it worse than we do"? Is that a distinction you are happy with?
As for your last point, yes, that is exactly what is achieved when you bomb an urban environment where people have not been allowed to escape.
You are trying to excuse the inexcusable.
The whole story is not a crock of sh1t for the reasons I gave. It is arguable that WP is a chemical weapon, but not likely to hold up really. The fact is, we use WP where civilian will get hit. Charming.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is WP any worse than any other way to kill an 'insurgent'?
And of course you have some evidence of that, or are you just repeating the bleating of a biased and discredited media?
that is exactly what is achieved when you bomb an urban environment where people have not been allowed to escape.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it is a means of slowly burning the flesh of someone, or where inhaled, a means burning the lungs and causing suffocation. In otherwords a slow and painful death where the substance cannot be removed.
The best comparison I could think of would be an acid attack.
If we are going to do that then we might as well employ mustard gas.
But afterall, they were all insurgents in Fallujah and insurgents can be killed any way we see fit, correct? Even those women and children found burnt. Probably goign to grow up to be insurgents anyway.
What part of my statement is discredited out of interest?
The best comparison I could think of would be an acid attack.
If we are going to do that then we might as well employ mustard gas.
But afterall, they were all insurgents in Fallujah and insurgents can be killed any way we see fit, correct? Even those women and children found burnt. Probably goign to grow up to be insurgents anyway.
What part of my statement is discredited out of interest?
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Martin,
let's start off with the phrase 'bombing,'
Seeing the original article included an interview with an Arty Obs who spoke of 'shake and bake' arty tactics against dug-on insurgents, smoke to clear the trenches, HE to kill those fleeing - and just because the journo that started all this didn't understand - or more probably wanted a 'shock-horror' story doesn’t make it anything more than SOP against 'the bad guys' – bombing implies aircraft – so perhaps the US has been using fleets of B-52s with non-combatant seeking warheads?
If you have any proof US forces are DELIBERATELY targeting non-combatants why not present it to the Hague? - unless you don't have any first-hand knowledge and you're just one of those happy to parrot any anti-US propaganda
Moving on
I think you said civilians weren’t permitted to leave Fallujah - any proof?
The Guardian reported that
(As you know the Guardian is a viciously pro-war neo-con newspaper)
- can't see anyone being in
Still looking for the slide presentation that showed 60% of Mosques were used as defensive strongpolints and arms dumps.....
let's start off with the phrase 'bombing,'
Seeing the original article included an interview with an Arty Obs who spoke of 'shake and bake' arty tactics against dug-on insurgents, smoke to clear the trenches, HE to kill those fleeing - and just because the journo that started all this didn't understand - or more probably wanted a 'shock-horror' story doesn’t make it anything more than SOP against 'the bad guys' – bombing implies aircraft – so perhaps the US has been using fleets of B-52s with non-combatant seeking warheads?
If you have any proof US forces are DELIBERATELY targeting non-combatants why not present it to the Hague? - unless you don't have any first-hand knowledge and you're just one of those happy to parrot any anti-US propaganda
Moving on
I think you said civilians weren’t permitted to leave Fallujah - any proof?
The Guardian reported that
200,000 to 300,000 residents fled the city before the assault
- can't see anyone being in
an urban environment where people have not been allowed to escape.
Still looking for the slide presentation that showed 60% of Mosques were used as defensive strongpolints and arms dumps.....
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riley Dove
White phos has been used many times in training. It's primary purpose was to obscure the target allowing friendlies to either move or retreat, If it also inhibited the enemies ability to kill you that was a bonus. Cost effective weapons material then.
The US have used this weapon in battle, you do not apply wishy washy PC ideals to an operational situation like this. Not nice but then war isn't I'm afraid.
EM
The purpose of white phosperous is effectvely to smoke people out with drifting clouds of the stuff
The US have used this weapon in battle, you do not apply wishy washy PC ideals to an operational situation like this. Not nice but then war isn't I'm afraid.
EM
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few posters here who need to grow up along with the media. The people in the theatre concerned are torturing each other, suicide bombing each other and killing our troops. If a little smoke grenade (albeit filled with willie peat) is used to flush some of them out in the open where they can be dealt with, avoiding as far as possible harm to those innocents who they have been sheltering amongst, why not applaud such tactics instead of falsely accusing USA of using chemical weapons.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Load Toad - Yes it would be great to have some good investigative journalism . I do however think that the place is too dangerous even for Roger Cook!
As for the definition of what is a chemical weapon and what's not . The point is that the U.S government denied it's use apart from smokescreens . This was then directly contradicted by the 'Shake and Bake' article. If you use questionable weapons fine - either own up and face the consequences or make sure you can cover it up without looking like arses.
In terms of the escalation in insurgents - maybe not disbanding the Iragi Police Force and the Armed forces would have been a good idea. I guess securing the bomb dumps instead of the oil ministry would have also have been a good move. However we are reaping what we have sown .
As for the definition of what is a chemical weapon and what's not . The point is that the U.S government denied it's use apart from smokescreens . This was then directly contradicted by the 'Shake and Bake' article. If you use questionable weapons fine - either own up and face the consequences or make sure you can cover it up without looking like arses.
In terms of the escalation in insurgents - maybe not disbanding the Iragi Police Force and the Armed forces would have been a good idea. I guess securing the bomb dumps instead of the oil ministry would have also have been a good move. However we are reaping what we have sown .
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right-o Maple 01,
For starters, you are being very innacurate in your interpretation of "bake" used in this arty terminology.
Insurgents aren't going to get up and run just because of WP is obscuring their vision. If WP was being used purely for smoke, why launch it preceeding a secondary arty barrage at all? Troops weren't running in after this WP attack, not to mention the difficulties the FOO party has directing proceedings with WP smoke obscuring the target.
In reality, no one (apart from yourself and soddim it seems) really disagrees that the WP in this case was used because it holds certain abhorant properties on contact with skin or mucus membranes. Given the defence put forward by the Pentagon on this issue, blatently stating they have the right to employ WP as an anti-personel device, the US military are admitting as such.
Or are you even disputing this?
Further, if the best you can do is pick holes in the symantics of using the term "bombing" when referring to arty then you are well wide of the mark. If you have in fact watched the documentary you will be aware it is an Italian documentary but we have an English voice over....I hope you get my point. I'd agree the RAI documentary was innacurate on a number of issues, from square one claiming Kim Phuc was a "he", not a "she" and that the napalm used to injure her, while being manufactured in America, sold by America and deployed from an American built A-1, was launched by an American pilot rather than the South Vietnamese one as it actually was (phew, the US was was almost responsible, eh?).
However, the documentary does carry a lot of merit in other areas and reports backed up fact on the most important issues which it is trying to address. The deployment of WP arty in an anti-personal context on fallujah is illustrated and not denied, apart from people desperately trying to justify its use.
Moving right along; as for targetting civilians, have a think about this:
I have stated from the start that US forces prevented men of fighting age from fleeing Fallujah, not to mention those who didn't have the capacity to leave (as the corpses of women, children and elderly found in the mopping up with testify). This was even reported on FOX news so before you fire up the tired line of leftie newspapers providing biased antiwar reporting....
Now, if SUV owning, Americans with access to constant weather updates on their TV sets won't seek refuge inland from incoming hurricanes, do you really think largely imobile Iraqi civilians are going to get up and move because the US again threatens to bomb them? They have been bombed ever since GWI. The unpalletable truth is many civilians couldn't or wouldn't leave.
Fallujah is (or was) a massive city of about half a million residents -- I don't disregard the fact that 300,000 fled, BUT, an infant could probably tell you that 500,000 - 300,000 doesn't equal an empty city......or are we talking 200,000 Fallujah residents in fact being insurgents? 30%-40% of the population?
Thus we come to the real crux of the issue. The US claimed that anyone left in Fallujah after all the ample warning to escape was to be deemed an insurgent. I don't claim the US was deliberately targetting civilians. They were never going to, because by definition it was simply impossible for anyone they killed to be a civilian. No civilians remained in Fallujah. Convenient?
All this is academic.
We have used weapons which maybe not by the letter of the law (didn't Bush state his administration would not just obey legal definitions, but would take aboard moral definitions?), but in practical terms are no different from chemical or biological agents. We are happy to employ these weapons where there are guaranteed to be civilians. We invaded Iraq on a whole pretext of the absolute evil of chemical/biological weapons and the hideous affect they have on humans.
Perhaps, you could for a fleeting moment find it within yourself to support the aims of the invasion, to support George Bush, to support your military, but to also realise that in some areas our forces at every level have utterly overstepped the mark, our aims having been completely undermined and any claim we have of a moral high ground in the eyes of those we are trying to win over being reduced to laughable hypocracy.
But I guess not. It doesn't matter what you or I think, it's what the Muslim population of the world thinks. Just think for a moment, what they are thinking when they hear of us employing these weapons.
For starters, you are being very innacurate in your interpretation of "bake" used in this arty terminology.
Insurgents aren't going to get up and run just because of WP is obscuring their vision. If WP was being used purely for smoke, why launch it preceeding a secondary arty barrage at all? Troops weren't running in after this WP attack, not to mention the difficulties the FOO party has directing proceedings with WP smoke obscuring the target.
In reality, no one (apart from yourself and soddim it seems) really disagrees that the WP in this case was used because it holds certain abhorant properties on contact with skin or mucus membranes. Given the defence put forward by the Pentagon on this issue, blatently stating they have the right to employ WP as an anti-personel device, the US military are admitting as such.
Or are you even disputing this?
Further, if the best you can do is pick holes in the symantics of using the term "bombing" when referring to arty then you are well wide of the mark. If you have in fact watched the documentary you will be aware it is an Italian documentary but we have an English voice over....I hope you get my point. I'd agree the RAI documentary was innacurate on a number of issues, from square one claiming Kim Phuc was a "he", not a "she" and that the napalm used to injure her, while being manufactured in America, sold by America and deployed from an American built A-1, was launched by an American pilot rather than the South Vietnamese one as it actually was (phew, the US was was almost responsible, eh?).
However, the documentary does carry a lot of merit in other areas and reports backed up fact on the most important issues which it is trying to address. The deployment of WP arty in an anti-personal context on fallujah is illustrated and not denied, apart from people desperately trying to justify its use.
Moving right along; as for targetting civilians, have a think about this:
I have stated from the start that US forces prevented men of fighting age from fleeing Fallujah, not to mention those who didn't have the capacity to leave (as the corpses of women, children and elderly found in the mopping up with testify). This was even reported on FOX news so before you fire up the tired line of leftie newspapers providing biased antiwar reporting....
Now, if SUV owning, Americans with access to constant weather updates on their TV sets won't seek refuge inland from incoming hurricanes, do you really think largely imobile Iraqi civilians are going to get up and move because the US again threatens to bomb them? They have been bombed ever since GWI. The unpalletable truth is many civilians couldn't or wouldn't leave.
Fallujah is (or was) a massive city of about half a million residents -- I don't disregard the fact that 300,000 fled, BUT, an infant could probably tell you that 500,000 - 300,000 doesn't equal an empty city......or are we talking 200,000 Fallujah residents in fact being insurgents? 30%-40% of the population?
Thus we come to the real crux of the issue. The US claimed that anyone left in Fallujah after all the ample warning to escape was to be deemed an insurgent. I don't claim the US was deliberately targetting civilians. They were never going to, because by definition it was simply impossible for anyone they killed to be a civilian. No civilians remained in Fallujah. Convenient?
All this is academic.
We have used weapons which maybe not by the letter of the law (didn't Bush state his administration would not just obey legal definitions, but would take aboard moral definitions?), but in practical terms are no different from chemical or biological agents. We are happy to employ these weapons where there are guaranteed to be civilians. We invaded Iraq on a whole pretext of the absolute evil of chemical/biological weapons and the hideous affect they have on humans.
Perhaps, you could for a fleeting moment find it within yourself to support the aims of the invasion, to support George Bush, to support your military, but to also realise that in some areas our forces at every level have utterly overstepped the mark, our aims having been completely undermined and any claim we have of a moral high ground in the eyes of those we are trying to win over being reduced to laughable hypocracy.
But I guess not. It doesn't matter what you or I think, it's what the Muslim population of the world thinks. Just think for a moment, what they are thinking when they hear of us employing these weapons.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Comfortable?
quote:
We have used weapons which maybe not by the letter of the law (didn't Bush state his administration would not just obey legal definitions, but would take aboard moral definitions?), but in practical terms are no different from chemical or biological agents. We are happy to employ these weapons where there are guaranteed to be civilians. We invaded Iraq on a whole pretext of the absolute evil of chemical/biological weapons and the hideous affect they have on humans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I admit I'm only middling in the foodchain from our CinC, but I am fairly sure that the Pres has never specified a weapons load for any of our aircraft (nukes excluded!), much less directed a small ground unit to use WP, but as I said, I could be 'just out of it.'
1a. Oh yeah, we are the evil ones who, all of us, go around offing innocents just for the hell of it.
quote:
It doesn't matter what you or I think, it's what the Muslim population of the world thinks. Just think for a moment, what they are thinking when they hear of us employing these weapons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what do they think when we do things like food/helos/$$ for hurricane/disaster relief? Same f***ing thing, so your point is moot. I would hazard that your mindset is along those same lines, so why bother trying?
quote (actually not all of it):
Now, if SUV owning, Americans........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTFO? If you are trying to present a rational arguement, this just detracts from any points you might make. Also, ain't it great that I can afford to own/drive one! (oh, and I own a gun, several in fact! Hopefully, that just sent the 'ping' meter into the red.
Now, let me ask a question to you: what have you DONE about any of this? If you don't like it, have you written your MP? Have you written/called/e-mailed your PM's office? Attended a legal protest? Or is it easier to just snipe from the comfort of home?
Final question: assume for a moment, you are in charge. The situation is as it is, what would you propose strategically and tactically? Should the Coalition just leave right now? Ok, what happens then?
Small unit matters: should the troops 'play nice' and not use the weapons available to them?
Do you have any solutions or is it just easier to snipe from the comforts of home?
(edited for some gross spelling errors)
We have used weapons which maybe not by the letter of the law (didn't Bush state his administration would not just obey legal definitions, but would take aboard moral definitions?), but in practical terms are no different from chemical or biological agents. We are happy to employ these weapons where there are guaranteed to be civilians. We invaded Iraq on a whole pretext of the absolute evil of chemical/biological weapons and the hideous affect they have on humans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I admit I'm only middling in the foodchain from our CinC, but I am fairly sure that the Pres has never specified a weapons load for any of our aircraft (nukes excluded!), much less directed a small ground unit to use WP, but as I said, I could be 'just out of it.'
1a. Oh yeah, we are the evil ones who, all of us, go around offing innocents just for the hell of it.
quote:
It doesn't matter what you or I think, it's what the Muslim population of the world thinks. Just think for a moment, what they are thinking when they hear of us employing these weapons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what do they think when we do things like food/helos/$$ for hurricane/disaster relief? Same f***ing thing, so your point is moot. I would hazard that your mindset is along those same lines, so why bother trying?
quote (actually not all of it):
Now, if SUV owning, Americans........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTFO? If you are trying to present a rational arguement, this just detracts from any points you might make. Also, ain't it great that I can afford to own/drive one! (oh, and I own a gun, several in fact! Hopefully, that just sent the 'ping' meter into the red.
Now, let me ask a question to you: what have you DONE about any of this? If you don't like it, have you written your MP? Have you written/called/e-mailed your PM's office? Attended a legal protest? Or is it easier to just snipe from the comfort of home?
Final question: assume for a moment, you are in charge. The situation is as it is, what would you propose strategically and tactically? Should the Coalition just leave right now? Ok, what happens then?
Small unit matters: should the troops 'play nice' and not use the weapons available to them?
Do you have any solutions or is it just easier to snipe from the comforts of home?
(edited for some gross spelling errors)
Last edited by brickhistory; 18th Nov 2005 at 23:50.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If all you accuse the US troops of doing with willie peat was true, Dave Martin, why have we not seen the evidence of phosphorus burns vividly displayed on our TV screens - the insurgents would not miss a propaganda coup like that.
Are you working for Ahl ul-Sunnah Wa al-Jamma?
Are you working for Ahl ul-Sunnah Wa al-Jamma?
The Chemical weapons Convention allows WP to be used as an obscurant, but not as a weapon. The use of WP as an anti -personnel weapon is therefore prohibited, and therefore it's use can be construed as use of a chemical weapon if so used.
The Mk80 smoke grenade has only been intended as use as a smoke grenade - although getting spattered with WP will spoil your day. Previous versions of WP grenades designed as anti - personnel grenades are illegal.
In my time, we didn't use the the Mk80 for training. Anyone know if this is still the case?
The Mk80 smoke grenade has only been intended as use as a smoke grenade - although getting spattered with WP will spoil your day. Previous versions of WP grenades designed as anti - personnel grenades are illegal.
In my time, we didn't use the the Mk80 for training. Anyone know if this is still the case?