US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah

[Tribesman]

Your sarcasm is noted for what it is.

What sarcasm ???? Unusually for me there is no sarcasm in that sentance , it is a plain statement of fact with one unintentional pun at the start .

Notice your terms here Tribesman
Yes , your government and military has described their use as chemical warfare has it not .
my terms Red ? Don't you mean your militaries terms .

the incndiary is not a chemical weapon - because its called an incendiary
And a phosgene shell isn't a chemical weapon if it is called a smoke weapon , or a mortar isn't a mortar if it is called a smoke thrower , napalm isn't napalm if you replace the gel with sugar or the gasoline with kerosene .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Your sarcasm is noted for what it is.

What sarcasm ???? Unusually for me there is no sarcasm in that sentance , it is a plain statement of fact with one unintentional pun at the start .

Notice your terms here Tribesman
Yes , your government and military has described their use as chemical warfare has it not .
my terms Red ? Don't you mean your militaries terms .

the incndiary is not a chemical weapon - because its called an incendiary
And a phosgene shell isn't a chemical weapon if it is called a smoke weapon , or a mortar isn't a mortar if it is called a smoke thrower , napalm isn't napalm if you replace the gel with sugar or the gasoline with kerosene .

Now, now my mick friend. You are feigning outrage at common "spin" used by all comers. Did the US label WP use as "chemical" in describing Saddam's use thereof? Yes. Did we rigorously label our own WP use -- not purposefully directed against a civilian population as was Saddam's (as you noted) -- "chemical?" No. This is common spin effort and regrettably typical of nearly all political communicators.

If you're not feigning outrage, then you are seriously trying to get someone in the American military to agree with a stance that says -- roughly -- that the USA does nasty stuff just like the terrorists, that we are no better morally than they and we too should be jailed as criminals (or respect them as our equals and negotiate as equal partners with them). If you believe that, you have a distorted view of Americans -- but I suspect you're just feigning outrage for effect.

[Tribesman]

Did we rigorously label our own WP use -- not purposefully directed against a civilian population as was Saddam's (as you noted) -- "chemical?"
Saddam claims the civilians were collateral damage .
Or terrorist supporters due to their proximity to terrorists and foriegn fighters .
I mean they didn't have to live in the town did they , they had a choice to leave , they chose to live among terrorists .~;)

that the USA does nasty stuff just like the terrorists, that we are no better morally than they and we too should be jailed as criminals
In regards to the real issue then yes , failure to ensure that the weapons did not hit civilians is not moral , no more moral than blowing up a pub because a few soldiers are drinking in it .
And if the allegations are proved that civilians were stopped from leaving and returned to the area to be attacked then yes it is criminal and criminal charges should follow.

[Soulforged]

that the USA does nasty stuff just like the terrorists, that we are no better morally than they and we too should be jailed as criminals
In regards to the real issue then yes , failure to ensure that the weapons did not hit civilians is not moral , no more moral than blowing up a pub because a few soldiers are drinking in it .
And if the allegations are proved that civilians were stopped from leaving and returned to the area to be attacked then yes it is criminal and criminal charges should follow.I fail to see how can anything inside war be amoral. "Silen enim leges inter arma"? I mean there's no morality, the war itself is the very antagonic of all morality. From that point of view there's no soldiers and no terrorists, there's humans killing each others, and that's all, no one is better.

[Just A Girl]

I fail to see how can anything inside war be amoral. "Silen enim leges inter arma"? I mean there's no morality, the war itself is the very antagonic of all morality. From that point of view there's no soldiers and no terrorists, there's humans killing each others, and that's all, no one is better.

Cool i think that stoped the arguing :)