U.S. using phosphorus bombs in Iraq

[Red Harvest]

I guess some folks would be astonished what live steam burns can do as well...roast your flesh and leave your clothing intact. Horrid stuff.

Redleg points out what I though was obvious...lack of oxygen kills. That was part of what flame throwers were for in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

Fuel air explosives make use of the air in the atmosphere. The trick is getting a good dispersion of the fuel...then WHAM! That's why we have flare stacks to *ignite* flammables rather than just venting them...better to light them off before they disperse. That way you have a powerful steady flame, not an explosion.

Of course if like me, you've ever worked around ethylene oxide and similar compounds, and done design for distilling/handling these materials, you get an appreciation for their dangers. EO is about the worst as an industrial material since it carries its own oxygen...just waiting for a chance to go into deflagration mode. You have to be real careful how you design a reboiler for this puppy...or you will do what everyone else in the industry has done...launched their EO distillation tower like a rocket while levelling the facility. No, I'm not kidding.

[Brenus]

Smoke muntions are not chemical weapons. Chemical weapons leave a tell - just like nuclear.
Again if Chemical weapons were used why is the town still occupied?
Why are the pictures of the troops shown without the soldiers being in MOPP gear?
Why are the civilians handling the bodies not in full bio suits or chemical protection suits?

Redleg, you know the answer, like I do because I know the weapons and the possible use.
Smoke munitions are not chemical but never breathe it. If you do have to stay in a room full of smoke from one, better to put your mask on. I know, a platoon had an intoxicated soldier due to a smoke grenade.
With phophorus, it burn on the contact of oxygen. So it burn completely. No need of protection against Sarin or other gas…
You know as me that most of the weapons designed to respect the letters of Geneva Conventions don’t respect the aims. No fragmentations grenades, so we have grenade with various metals and it is a pure coincidence if they explode in hundred small pieces of sharp particles due to difference of resistance to pressure… No gas, but don’t stay in a smoke of a smoke grenade. Flame throwers only against obstacle, of course, and no use of 12.5mm calibre machine gun as anti-personnel weapons… We all laughed, I remember.

[Redleg]

The wounds have to be explained. The nature of the burns in combination with the intact clothes strongly suggests the use of a chemical as the killer.

Not at all - chemical agents that are used in munitions do not leave burns - it leaves blisters or nerves completely shut down - in other words the cause of death is very obvious. Now Blood agents are a little harder to detect - but if one knows what to look for - the cause of death can be determined.

Burns mean that the weapon used was a phyrotechnic of some type - either fuel air explosive or intense heat created by smoke.

Because once it has been allowed to burn out, phosphorus disappears. It says so in the link you provided: 'White phosphorus burns spontaneously in air. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears.'

And now you know in your own words why it is not considered a chemical weapon. But a smoke or pyrotechnics.

[solypsist]

we can stay here all day picking apart the definition and characteristics of phosphorus but the deal is that the US continues to lose prestige in the global community and at home with things like this. it's been a while since anyone referred to us as "the good guys."

[Redleg]

we can stay here all day picking apart the definition and characteristics of phosphorus but the deal is that the US continues to lose prestige in the global community and at home with things like this. it's been a while since anyone referred to us as "the good guys."

However that picking apart the definition is important - because with one its a war crime - which yours truely could be considered guilty of in a European Court. And the other one is what the United States and several other nations use Smoke munitions for.

The prestige in the global commuity was not lost because of the use of smoke in Iraq - the lose of prestige happened for other reasons.

[Adrian II]

Burns mean that the weapon used was a pyrotechnic of some type - either fuel air explosive or intense heat created by smoke.

Indeed, or phosphorus. Because phosphorus burns to the bone.

[Soulforged]

The prestige in the global commuity was not lost because of the use of smoke in Iraq - the lose of prestige happened for other reasons.

Every step counts in the big picture. The good thing to do, is just an easy one, try not to do to others what you will not do to yourself. As I know it, USA, besides the old hipocresy surrounding WMD, also alleged that Iraq was in possetion of several quantities of chemical weapons, and with the Crusaders flag they fled to Iraq to look for this. The discurs of Mr. Bush later was that the world was a better place (because he runned out of excuses). Now they tried to forbid the use of this kind of weapons, and now they're using it themselves. But correct me if I'm wrong, as part of the global community I could change my mind, even if it's in a single separated subject.

[Redleg]

Every step counts in the big picture. The good thing to do, is just an easy one, try not to do to others what you will not do to yourself. As I know it, USA, besides the old hipocresy surrounding WMD, also alleged that Iraq was in possetion of several quantities of chemical weapons, and with the Crusaders flag they fled to Iraq to look for this. The discurs of Mr. Bush later was that the world was a better place (because he runned out of excuses). Now they tried to forbid the use of this kind of weapons, and now they're using it themselves. But correct me if I'm wrong, as part of the global community I could change my mind, even if it's in a single separated subject.

You missed the point it seems.

[Papewaio]

Yes, and if you get hit by a shell of sarin gas you are probably crushed to death and still nobody would argue that sarin is not a chemical weapon.

The relative importance of the malicious effects of the weapon certainly is an issue here and I am not so sure that the toxic component of white phosphorous as a weapon is so negligable that it warrants shrugging off any claims that it has characteristics of a chemical weapon with snappish remarks (like the one my initial comment was directed at).

All physical weapons are made of chemicals.

You would have to use lasers/microwaves/sonic weapons not to be using weapons made of chemicals...

[Soulforged]

Not at all - chemical agents that are used in munitions do not leave burns - it leaves blisters or nerves completely shut down - in other words the cause of death is very obvious. Now Blood agents are a little harder to detect - but if one knows what to look for - the cause of death can be determined.
Burns mean that the weapon used was a phyrotechnic of some type - either fuel air explosive or intense heat created by smoke.

Vesicant
(Blister agent) Mustard gas, Lewisite Burning or stinging of eyes and skin. Creates extreme burning pain; conjunctivitis; large fluid blisters on the skin that heal slowly, and may become infected. Vapors: 4 to 6 hours, eyes and lungs affected more rapidly; Skin: 2 to 48 hours Persistent and a contact hazard. Used to incapacitate rather than kill, overloading the medical facilities.

Considered chemical weapon. Of course the effect and the use differs, but it burns.
Said this...Why is that we're discussing semantics, or definitions? The problem here is exactly the use of this weapon, beyond target marking.
For what you see in the video Redleg, can you say for what it was used? I asked someone today about this, and he said me that the WP is usually used upwards to mark flying targets, or targets in the air, but again completly ignorant about this.

[Redleg]

Considered chemical weapon. Of course the effect and the use differs, but it burns.
Said this...Why is that we're discussing semantics, or definitions? The problem here is exactly the use of this weapon, beyond target marking.
For what you see in the video Redleg, can you say for what it was used? I asked someone today about this, and he said me that the WP is usually used upwards to mark flying targets, or targets in the air, but again completly ignorant about this.

Wrong kind of burn - the second word in that sentence is key to understanding the definition of Lewisite or as its common name Mustard Gas effects on the human body. In the case of Lewisite it is a burning sensation and a chemical burn not an actual burn from fire. Try again, there not the same. The definitions are import because of my earlier statement. Calling smoke rounds chemical warfare - is not consist with the battlefield use of smoke.

The use beyond target marking has been mentioned at least once by myself in a previous post. But here it is again. Artillery Doctrine for the use of WP is primarily for marking targets, generating battlefield smoke, and one type of the muntion (there are two types by the way) is used to destroy fuel and ammo dumps. WP hand grenades are used primarily for marking and for destruction of equipment. If the squad is carrying enough of them - I image it makes for a quick and effective smoke screen to cover them in manuever.

And the person you asked is also wrong - its not used to mark targets in the air - it is used to mark targets for aircraft - or to mark a spot on the battlefield for manuever. In other words it is often used as a reference point.

The pictures on the video and the pictures linked to the video seem to indicate to me that it was M825 smoke - which is used primarily for battlefield smoke and marking. Notice that the pictures primarily indicate an airburst of the round - which is how M825 smoke is dispersed since the WP laden felt wedges are ejected from the base of the canister. Makes for interesting picture shots at night but I don't believe M825 is all that effective for actually marking targets during the night. However it is a good use of the smoke in a night operation to obsure the night vision devices and even the night vision of the enemy since it blocks IR.

My artillery doctrine knowledge is now possiblity out of date by 5 years - but the use of M825 smoke in a city as a marking round does not seem to make a lot of sense to me. It is a great screening smoke round - since it lies a thick and wide/long smoke screen rapidily (depending upon length and width of the smoke screen in relationship to the gun line.) but as a marking round its uses is limited because of the dispersion of the felt wedges out of the canister. M825 was normally used as a smoke screen smoke when I was training with it. We primarily used M116 WP which would be a ground burst with a heavy and dense bright white smoke plume would be a better marking round.

But that is my educated guess from seeing the picture shots - to fully understand what round was used and why - I would have to hear the call for fire for the mission. Until then I don't have enough information to hazard an answer based upon facts.


Edit: As for the some of the pictures of the dead - many of those pictures are consistent with what I saw concerning combat troops killed near a fuel air explosion - but the pictures were not clear because of the video image on my computer - to much blur on the picture.

[PanzerJaeger]

Don't tell me I am being anti-American. I know better what America stands for than some Americans in this forum.

You are completely anti-american, and have always been that way. (Which is fine, if you'd come out and be a man about it.)

You attempted to create a story that did not exist using a video and other "evidence" that no responsible journalist would consider using.

Then when your bullshit was called by actual munitions specialists on this board, you start throwing around broad anti-american statements "Youre government bla bla bla... " It didnt take much scratching to find your real sentiments.


And then I love this bit...

we can stay here all day picking apart the definition and characteristics of phosphorus but the deal is that the US continues to lose prestige in the global community and at home with things like this. it's been a while since anyone referred to us as "the good guys."

Solypsis, supposed seeker of the truth and reality, moving us along. "Nothing to see here guys. Even though someone is spouting anti-american bullshit that is completely erroneous, dont question it because its not even worth it." What the ____?

I guess the truth is only important when it involves supposed Bush scandals, huh? When someone is insulting the integrity of our nation, just accept it?

I dont know whats worse, the blatant anti-americanism of Adrian or the blatant collaboration by Solypsis.

[Soulforged]

Wrong kind of burn - the second word in that sentence is key to understanding the definition of Lewisite or as its common name Mustard Gas effects on the human body. In the case of Lewisite it is a burning sensation and a chemical burn not an actual burn from fire. Try again, there not the same. The definitions are import because of my earlier statement. Calling smoke rounds chemical warfare - is not consist with the battlefield use of smoke.

Hey that isn't fair, I clearly stated that it was a different kind of burning, well in other words, but it's OK, I knew I'll receive this kind of answer.
Thanks for the information then, I knew there was something wrong with the asnwer I got for that person.

You attempted to create a story that did not exist using a video and other "evidence" that no responsible journalist would consider using.

Sure Panzer. To a "materialist" like you saying such thing should be beneath you. Don't you know that there's no single responsable journalist? Further more, all journalists here passed the same video, crediting the same facts that AdrianII stated. Now you can attempt to call everything a lie, but another thing is to support it.

Solypsis, supposed seeker of the truth and reality, moving us along. "Nothing to see here guys. Even though someone is spouting anti-american bullshit that is completely erroneous, dont question it because its not even worth it." What the ____?

Huh? So you're saying that USA is not loosing prestige? WOW Man look at the world news. Flash for you: USA is the most hated country in all modern history, and I come from the country wich has the worst actitude against "americans" so I can say it with no problems. Now if you were talking about the facts related by AdrianII, then where's the proof? It's much easier to believe in the state right Jager?

[Aurelian]

"Raw Story" just posted confirmation of some of the details of this story. Seems that "Field Artillery" magazine confirmed the use of WP in Fallujah as an anti-personnel weapon. This, of course, goes against previous US government denials... because they just lie for the heck of it sometimes. Note the highlighted description of the tactical use of WP given below:

U.S. Army publication confirms United States used incendiary weapon in Falluja
11/09/2005 @ 5:26 pm
Filed by RAW STORY

The March edition of Field Artillery magazine, a U.S. Army publication, reveals that the U.S. military did in fact use the incendiary weapon white phosphorous in Fallujah, Iraq, a Daily Kos diarist has found.

"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the article's author wrote. "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

A second publication, Infantry Magazine, also alleges that white phosphorous was used near the Iraqi city of Irbil. Newsroom sources tell RAW STORY that the New York Times will be running a short piece on the Italian documentarian whose video documented the weapon's use Thursday.

A terrifying video about the U.S. use of the weapon in Fallujah is available at Information Clearinghouse.

The U.S. has said any use of the weapon was for "lighting" purposes.

According to the Toxic Disease registry, "White phosphorus is a waxy solid which burns easily and is used in chemical manufacturing and smoke munitions. Exposure to white phosphorus may cause burns and irritation, liver, kidney, heart, lung, or bone damage, and death."

Wikipedia adds, "Detonating a WP shell in a confined area (like firing into a building) will indeed cause an effect comparable to the use of lung agent poison gases for those inside who do not or can not flee, with the additional consequence of setting the room(s) alight. Death will occur from lung edema, phosphoric acid poisoning or the resulting shock, or burns."

Use of white phosphorus is not banned by name in any international treaty. However, the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or in areas that have high civilian populations. The United States is among several nations that are not signatories to the convention.

The PDF of the article is here.

DEVELOPING....

The second highlighted portion, which describes death from WP in confined areas due to "lung edema" might have been what the Iraqi Doctor mentioned earlier was seeing.

As we've said before, WP is not a "chemical weapon" in the technical sense, but it can apparently cause casualties that give the impression that a chemical agent was used.

In any event, the use of WP as an anti-personnel weapon in an area inhabited by civilians... while not illegal for US troops... is certainly frowned upon by international legal standards.

[Aurelian]

Jeebus, there's more supporting evidence.

But first, a bit on the identity of the authors of the "Field Artillery" article:

This according to Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour, and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight, the authors of the article. Their article fundamentally disagrees with the statement by the U.S. State Department on the matter.

Here's the new evidence:

There are also numerous reports from embedded journalists that WP was fired on Fallujah, such as this one from the North County Times:

"Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.
...
The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."

Those quotes were taken from the site Live Journal, and there is an interesting discussion there with a bunch of Iraq veterans (including artillery men) participating. One of the guys, kc724, a trained artillery officer, was incredulous about the use of WP because, as he stated:

"In a tactical sense using WP would be good to clear an open field, but to fire it into the city is suicide. Assuming you don't set half the city on fire, what does the army do after firing artillery into an area; the infantry moves in to clear and capture the ground. If you ever walked into an area that's been hit with WP you'll know that YOU'LL NEVER WANT TO DO THAT AGAIN, even after it's been settled for a few hours."

So, sounds pretty generically lethal to me. Of course, we have accounts of walls of flame throughout the city, and (as stated in "Field Artillery") it doesn't sound like the intent was to immediately move in and take areas, but rather to pry defenders out with WP and blow them up with HE. He also said that WP was useless for illumination at night because it screws up your night vision... which US troops would presumably have in much greater quantities than the citizens of Fallujah. So, if true, that probably scuppers the State Department's explanation that WP was only used for illumination.

So far, based on the article in "Field Artillery", the eyewitness accounts of embedded journalists, the Doctor mentioned earlier, the veterans who were in the documentary... it sounds like the use of WP as an anti-personnel weapon in an urban environment is true, and the State Department "didn't know" what it was talking about.

[Kagemusha]

This is exactly what i feared.

[Watchman]

"Use of white phosphorus is not banned by name in any international treaty. However, the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or in areas that have high civilian populations. The United States is among several nations that are not signatories to the convention."

This alone is a PR hit for the US. Other people who try to set up common frameworks of what's allowed and what's not have a habit of disliking ornery fellows who want to live by their own laws. Particularly if they're in the habit of being chronically high and mighty on moral clay legs.

Lying through their teeth doesn't help one bit.

As a side note, I can't say I'm too surprised to find the usual chorus of pro-Bush hardline apologists emphatically insisting on getting stuck on pointless details, definitions and formalities like they were in a (self-satirical) US courtroom. Now what was that winning one-liner Slick Willie let out one day ? "That depends on your definition of oral sex", wasn't it...?

[Adrian II]

I dont know whats worse, the blatant anti-americanism of Adrian or the blatant collaboration by Solypsist.

I'm afraid your views are in a very real sense un-American. The U.S. is a free nation, not some bigger, improved version of nazi Germany.

[Ja'chyra]

I don't think it comes under CBRN as it is an element not a chemical. Also no chemical detection kit that I know of looks for phos as a risk.

So I would have to say that it's not CW.

On another note, the army also has to follow rules that they're not allowed to deliberately blind opponents e.g. using lasers to burn out retinas, but it is perfectly ok to shoot them in the head, go figure

[Redleg]

The complete article from the Field Artillery Magazine for anyone that is interested.

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/

[Ser Clegane]

I don't think it comes under CBRN as it is an element not a chemical.

Chlorine would also be a pure "element" - however, I am pretty sure that chlorine gas would be considered to be a CW (I could be wrong though)

Also no chemical detection kit that I know of looks for phos as a risk.

That's probably because white phosphorous is actually a solid (under normal pressure it would evaporate at 280°C), which means that it is rather unlikely that you have some phosphorous "leakage" like you would have it for a gaseous or volatile chemical.

[Fragony]

I'm afraid your views are in a very real sense un-American. The U.S. is a free nation, not some bigger, improved version of nazi Germany.

Wow AdrianII, who stepped on the estrogen button?

[Ja'chyra]

That was kind of my point Ser

[Redleg]

Now part of the statement of Aurelian's post made me question something. The initial statements I read stated that the WP was used for marking. Which like mentioned earlier, I was trying to understand why they decided to use the M825 smoke for marking targets in a city - since it is a wide area screen not a good marking round. Which was what I believed the Military stated the rounds were used for - Marking. Now Aurelian mentioned a report where the State Department said it was used of illumination.

Well if anyone doubts him or the source that he got it from - I found the State Department statement. Notice what the web site states - kind of an oxymoron isn't.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv..._Fallujah.html

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

So now the State Department and the Military will have to explain why the statement was made. It should provide some interesting coverage in the media if the press in the United States picks up the story.

As a side note, I can't say I'm too surprised to find the usual chorus of pro-Bush hardline apologists emphatically insisting on getting stuck on pointless details, definitions and formalities like they were in a (self-satirical) US courtroom. Now what was that winning one-liner Slick Willie let out one day ? "That depends on your definition of oral sex", wasn't it...?

What do you think an internet debate is about - its geting stuck on details, definitions, and formalities. So you can run that race somewhere else. (lets see if your smart enough to figure out the reference to that one)

By the way so I guess your in the crowd that would accuse me of being a war criminal for firing M825 smoke on the battlefield to screen manuever, for firing M110 WP at a ammo dump, and M110 WP several times to mark enemy positions for aircraft.

Edit: Liked mentioned to Adrian if the issue was just about the use of smoke in a city combat operation my arguement might have surprised many of you - since I agree completely with the statement made by an artillery officer that Aurelian linked - it makes no sense to use a lot of smoke munitions in a city unless you want risk burning the city to the ground. Just like you don't use illumination rounds in a city unless your willing to risk burning it down. However when one calls it a banned weapon - that arguement is less important because of the reality of its use, its not a banned weapon - battlefield smoke is an important element to any battle.

I am embarassed I forgot the proper identification for the WP high explosive shell - its not M116 like mentioned in several posts but M110.

[Adrian II]

Wow AdrianII, who stepped on the estrogen button?

Shouldn't you be busy plugging leaks in your Drammer around the clock?

[Fragony]

Shouldn't you be busy plugging leaks in your Drammer around the clock?

Suffer. And it isn't leaking, just some water from the //dutch alert// schroef, die schoonheid word met water gesmeerd en moest alleen even aangedraaid worden, wat ben ik toch een bofkont//. And I always find the time to your balls a little rub

[Adrian II]

And it isn't leaking, just some water from the //dutch alert// schroef, die schoonheid word met water gesmeerd en moest alleen even aangedraaid worden, wat ben ik toch een bofkont//.

Wacht maar tot je boegschroeven gaan roesten. Ach, die motorsloepjes ook...

And I always find the time to your balls a little rub

Ahhem, you mean tickle my fancy.

[Fragony]

Wacht maar tot je boegschroeven gaan roesten. Ach, die motorsloepjes ook.

De drammer dramt door, ding is onverwoestbaar ;) Het mag dan niet snel zijn maar voor 10 euro van Amersfoort naar Amsterdam! En zeilen dat is zo'n werk joh, misschien de volgende want het is natuurlijk wel veel meer 'varen'.

[Aurelian]

Ahem. Here's a longer snippet from the NC Times article describing Marines dropping WP mortar fire into Fallujah LINK:

Fighting from a distance

After pounding parts of the city for days, many Marines say the recent combat escalated into more than they had planned for, but not more than they could handle.

"It's a war," said Cpl. Nicholas Bogert, 22, of Morris, N.Y.

Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

"We had all this SASO (security and stabilization operations) training back home," he said. "And then this turns into a real goddamned war."

Just as his team started to eat a breakfast of packaged rations Saturday, Bogert got a fire mission over the radio.

"Stand by!" he yelled, sending Lance Cpls. Jonathan Alexander and Jonathan Millikin scrambling to their feet.

Shake 'n' bake

Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.

Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."

Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.

"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.

"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.

The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.

They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling...


Every day since they started firing rounds into the city, other Marines have stopped by the mortar pit to take a turn dropping mortars into the tube and firing at some unseen target.

Like tourists at some macabre carnival, some bring cameras and have other troops snap photos of their combat shot. Even the battalion surgeon fired a few Saturday, just for sport.

Everyone wants to "get some," the troops explain, some joking that Fallujah is like a live-fire range.

Some have started to think of what happens after all the guns go silent.

"I just don't want to come home and have someone calling me a baby killer," Alexander said after firing dozens of high explosive mortar rounds into the city. "That would piss me off."

Alexander said no one has told him what the charges have hit.

[yesdachi]

It seems like we have used the WP rounds as a way to smoke the enemy out and if they didn’t come out they died from suffocation. Doesn’t seem like that is what it was made for but an effective alternate use. I don’t mind. I don’t like the collateral damage (I find myself caring more for the dead pets than the civilians who harbor the terrorists) but it is not like we didn’t warn the people in Fallujah or anywhere else we fight.

It would be nice if we weren’t forced to use tactics like this, I would guess our soldiers would prefer a stand-up fight but no one will stand up and fight us! The terrorists hide behind (willing IMO) human shields hoping we will be decent and not harm the innocent (whatever) civilians.

It is not very PC but I keep seeing the terrorists as bugs and WP like a bug bomb that either kills the bugs in the walls and crawlspaces or forces them out so we can smash them with a shoe.
I have no idea what smiley to use for that comment?!?