1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

White Phosphorous

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by flashmax, Sep 4, 2013.

  1. flashmax

    flashmax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    6,186
    Location:
    Colorado
    tinman88 claimed, in the thread titled John Kerry, that Phosphorous is a 'banned chemical weapon'. It is not. In fact Phosphorous is a REQUIRED element for plant growth, bone growth, human development, LIFE itself. The military use of Willy Pete ( White Phosphorous )is limited by international law but it is in no way banned. The fact that there are people out there who who claim that it is a "Chemical Weapon" only demonstrates how much ignorance there is in the world and how much that ignorance is used to promote hysterical fear in the ignorant by first calling some thing a 'Chemical' and then claiming that it is a weapon and evil. Water is a cmemical compound. You can drown in it. It can be used as a weapon of war. It must therefore be banned? By international law? Don't submit to the foolishness. Resist the manipulation of those who do NOT have your best interests in mind when they promote these flat out false claims.

    Don T
     
  2. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Heavy use of Willy Pete in WWII and Korea saved the lives of a lot of Marines and GI's.

    The commie rats weren't so fortunate.
     
  3. higun

    higun Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    177
    Brian,

    A correction to your post.

    That should be "Commie rat bastards"
     
  4. Joe Potosky

    Joe Potosky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,481
    White Phosphorus (WP)

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
     
  5. CharlieAMA

    CharlieAMA TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    12,551
    Location:
    God's Country
    Yes Eddie, I have seen that video. It is amazing what that stuff can do.
     
  6. flashmax

    flashmax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    6,186
    Location:
    Colorado
    Note the hysteria in your posting. I long since noted the word "Dismissed". What does the word mean to you? Hmmmm?

    White Phosphorous is no more dangerous than is a bullet or a 250lb. GP Bomb. It is a smoke producer with incidental incindiary properties. It is less furious than is NaPalm ( Sodium Palmitate ) which the Syrian Government used in Aleppo a few days ago but the ignorant have siezed on a visual and made Willy Pete a horror. War is a bad deal all around. Who targets civilians? As a tactic? Damn sure it isn't either the Israeli Army or the US Army. Both go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties ... to the point of getting their/our own soldiers killed. The terrs, the Syrians, Iranians, Egyptians, the "musselmen" all target civilians as a Tactic. The point here is that Phosphorous is NOT a 'banned chemical weapon'. It is a weapon. It has defensive uses and offensive uses. Just like a knife, a club, or a shotgun. Unlike a knife, club, or shotgun it can conceal troops from observation. It can be used by G.I. Jody to mark a Tank for Aerial Rocket Artillery to take out. It is SMOKE. It is also FIRE. It is an instrument.

    Don T
     
  7. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Also note that certain undesirable Middle East dictators and organizations used civilians as human shields.
     
  8. bigbore613

    bigbore613 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,469
    Willie Peter make you a believer! BOO COO Pucker power! Jeff
     
  9. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,335
    Location:
    S-E PA
    W/P is still used in illumination flares as well.

    If you ban it then you cannot light the night battle field.

    Just saying...
     
  10. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,335
    Location:
    S-E PA
    TinMan,

    From your post "Some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in the three-week conflict."

    That is a 100:1 attrition rate - I would do NOTHING to change that. In fact I'd find out what we did, bottle it, sell it to allies and try to make it more potent for the next battle.

    War is hell - but I want that to be true only for the other guy...

    Of all things, Putin makes a great case for this type of 'defeat of enemies' - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/03/Inside-the-mind-putin

    Unbelievable article - worth the read.

    What happens if I mix W/P with Napalm, and pigs blood??
     
  11. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,228
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    Sure wouldn't have wanted to be in that tank

    Calling WP a chemical weapon is about the same as calling an AR an assault weapon, they (the media and giverment) use the words to get the most bang for the buck and it makes no difference if they use them right or wrong
     
  12. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,335
    Location:
    S-E PA
    The one I notice in these images is that they do not look like US troops or those of our allies. Sorry for the other guy, but in a conflict this works for me.
     
  13. wolfram

    wolfram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,258
    Evidently there are some folks that actually believe there could be such a thing as 'clean' or 'humane' warefare and its up to us to make and enforce the rules. Kind of in denial on that one.
     
  14. kiv-c

    kiv-c Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    852
    Anyone who believes that a war can be waged "cleanly" or "humanely" is probably convinced that a turd can be picked up by the clean end!

    Kiv
     
  15. flashmax

    flashmax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    6,186
    Location:
    Colorado
    Dismissed; No proof. Lack of evidence. False charge.

    Some folks are just plain prejudiced. We have one on here.

    Don T
     
  16. drgondog

    drgondog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    @TinMan - Willy Pete is no more injurious than a 50 Cal M2, a 30-06 round. napalm, HE, HEI, hatchet, arrow, toe poppers, bouncing betty's, IED's.

    If you think otherwise - make your case - then make whatever point that one killing/maiming weapon of war is more 'politically correct' when it finds the head of an 8 or 80 year old woman.

    Politicians are FAR more dismissive of collateral damage when they want the country to go to war.
     
  17. flashmax

    flashmax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    6,186
    Location:
    Colorado
    There are multiple international laws that could be seen to regulate white phosphorus use.[92] Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol prohibits the use of said incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. The convention also defines weapons which are not to be considered to be incendiary weapons. Examples are: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect.

    Weapons containing White Phosphorus, but are not Incendiary Weapons, are not regulated by the above protocol.

    However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.).

    The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals" (CWC, II). An annex lists chemicals that fall under this definition and WP is not listed in the Schedules of chemical weapons or precursors.[93]

    In an 2005 interview with RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (an organization overseeing the CWC and reporting directly to the UN General Assembly), questioned whether the weapon should fall under the convention's provisions:
    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 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".[94]
    Kaiser was a staff spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.[95] The OPCW, using member votes, creates Schedules of chemical weapons or dual-use chemicals of concern and white phosphorus is not in any of these schedules.

    The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, not the Chemical Weapons Convention, goes on, in its Protocol III, to prohibit the use of all air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations, or for indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians.[96] However, that protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effects are secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has often been read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. Several countries, most notably Israel, are not signatories to Protocol III.[97]

    The legal position however, is not the only consideration in any war. For instance, concerning the U.S. use of white phosphorus in Iraq, the British Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell, said
    "The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency. The denial of use followed by the admission will simply convince the doubters that there was something to hide".[98]


    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    If you read this far then you know you are wrong. Just because you have a hardon for Jews does NOT mean that White Phosphorous is a 'banned chemical weapon'. You limberweenie anti-semites are just plain WRONG. You seize on propaganda and run with it.

    I'm done with you. Everyone on this list knows what you are and that no ammount of fact will penetrate your thick skull and knock loose the anti-Jew hatred you hold. Bye now, have a nise life.

    Don T
     
  18. blade819

    blade819 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    4,460
    Willie Peter was used extensively in Viet Nam as an Artillery Marker Round. There were also WP markers gernades. Very effective and smoke lasted a long time. However, one always had to make sure they were up wind when exploded. Very nasty stuff on the human skin.

    blade819
     
  19. drgondog

    drgondog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    TinMan - for what it is worth WRT Syria action, I vehemently oppose any action on our part even if sanctioned by UN.

    One, there is zero plan which if implemented would force Assad to discontinue use of Sarin and it hasn't been proven that the Sarin that was used was in fact Syria made and Syria delivered on the orders of Assad. The Russians recently presented a 100 page report on Aleppa in which the chemical compound was WWII vintage sarin derivative distinctly Not of Syrian (or Russian) manufacture or explosive agent to disburse.

    That said, there is an equal probability that one or more of the anti Assad group delivered the gas at Aleppa and as yet unknown whether said forces also used gas last month.

    Two, there are unintended consequences if in fact Iran moved 50000 troops to Syria - mainly because they have to cross Iraq to get there...and who knows what actions Hezbollah will take in Lebanon against Israel. In addition Russia has moved more assets to Syria 'area' and has committed to replenish all destroyed assets by US. As yet unknown whether Russian technicians will man the S-300 anti missile defenses or whether Russian naval forces take part in the defense.

    Any action to supply 'rebel forces' is to supply Al Qaeda as well. Toppling Assad springs ALL Assad controlled WMD to unknown third parties. As an illustration how did Libya work out for us? There is still no knowledge of the whereabouts of 20,000 SA-7 surface to air missiles.

    Three, this is a great time to disengage from the Med/Middle east.

    Last, while I care intellectually that WP is nasty with few peers in the arsenal of war, making WP along with mines as a cause celebre seems silly when nuclear weapons, Sarin and Smallpox and other bacteriological weapons are proliferate.. in other words a popcorn fart in a hurricane.

    The UN is toothless and has been rendered to nothing more than a means to redistribute Western assets to favored recipients of the bureaucracy of the UN.

    If you wish to eradicate such weapons figure out a way to eradicate humans and turn the earth over to the survivor life that doesn't know how to make them.
     
  20. hera200

    hera200 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    395
    Location:
    HOUSTON, TX and ONTARIO, CANADA
    I am a little confused. Phosphorus is not a chemical? I seem to remember in high school that on the TABLE OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS the letter 'P' stood for something. Now what was that? Hmmm.....BUD
     
Similar Threads
  1. Rollin Oswald
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    992
  2. TEXASZEPHYR
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,569
  3. kd185
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,552
  4. hehawboy
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,559
  5. Guy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    619
Loading...
Search tags for this page

shooting phosphorus