(06-11-2017, 10:05 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2017, 09:29 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Oh Kotite, you poor thing, still trying use The Washington Post to salve your injured pride. If the WP says those rounds are Willie Pete then it's more likely they are a new type of food delivery mechanism.
Of course there's also this from that travesty of yellow journalism, "The often-controversial munitions are common in western militaries and are used primarily to create smoke screens, though they can also be dropped as an incendiary weapon.", but really, you do need to get some help before you injure yourself with those jumps to the worst possible conclusion.
For you to be writing such derogatory things about the other posters here, you sure do have a deep seated issue of your own.
![[Image: hqdefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PBeeCH3fNxw/hqdefault.jpg)
Derogatory? I called the notion there is not a smoking gun for the Russia probe naive.
I stated a fact you called it yellow journalism. Shall I just post the FOX version of any "fact" so it is scrubbed enough for you? (Dozens of news outlets have this story) This section has been thoroughly ruined over the past 9 months. This is not a forum for debate about whether something is good or just or justified or legal.. It is an echo chamber or the mob rules mentality. I stopped posting here for months for several reasons, but this thread has just justified my absence. Nothing changes here.
Here is a fact.
"It's not a fact as you stated it."
"You're just saying that because you can't say anything about Russia."
"You're being derogatory."
Let me guess.. I am a snowkflake who can't deal?
Did you read the article you posted?
Let me help you connect the dots:
1. The military admitted to using phosphorus.
2. It us used as a smoke screen. Typing slowly now so you can understand. S o t h e e n e m y c a n n o t s e e y o u.
3. Used but within the guidelines of all international accepted practices.
In conclusion, nothing to see here, but #becausetrump.
(06-11-2017, 11:35 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]I see.. I am mischaracterizing the article. It wasn't dropped just over a densely populated area. And it's normal. And none of this should be called into question. And if any news outlet aside from FOX (who has posted about this btw) or Infowars talks about this it's yellow journalism or fake news. And we need a "bad language" filter on the word naivete as it is derogatory. And every one of you would be defending this in exactly the same manner if this went down under Obama.
Yup. This is exactly why I stopped posting in this forum. Reality, logic, facts, reason, common sense... They are all checked at the door the moment this section of the board is accessed.
Yes, I can honestly say if you replace the timeline and the word Trump with Obama I would have the exact same stance. Would you?
(06-11-2017, 10:15 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2017, 09:29 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Oh Kotite, you poor thing, still trying use The Washington Post to salve your injured pride. If the WP says those rounds are Willie Pete then it's more likely they are a new type of food delivery mechanism.
Of course there's also this from that travesty of yellow journalism, "The often-controversial munitions are common in western militaries and are used primarily to create smoke screens, though they can also be dropped as an incendiary weapon.", but really, you do need to get some help before you injure yourself with those jumps to the worst possible conclusion.
For you to be writing such derogatory things about the other posters here, you sure do have a deep seated issue of your own.
In defense of the Washington Post, the article is very fair. It's Kotite's characterization of the article that is unfair.
The article says, according to a couple of groups and a video, it's happened a couple of times, but it also says that use of that stuff is very common and proper, and it's not been confirmed that it actually happened in an improper way. That's a very fair article. Any thinking person can read that article and draw their own conclusions.
When Kotite says, look at how Trump is going after civilians, that is what is unfair. Not the original article.
The headline of the article is misleading. THAT is my issue with the media these days. They use misleading headlines to misinform the masses that do not actually read the details.
Let me know when the official civilian body count is listed so we can talk about hyperbole.
(06-11-2017, 06:49 PM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]Let me know when the official civilian body count is listed so we can talk about hyperbole.
That burden is on you pal. YOU posted a link with a misleading headline and got your panties in a wad after having not read the article of the link you posted.
Trump! White phosphorous!
![[Image: jq118m.jpg]](http://i63.tinypic.com/jq118m.jpg)
White phosphorous! Trump!
White phosphorus spontaneously ignites in air. Red phosphorus does not. White phosphorus is kept in water to prevent it from burning.
I had a classmate who would buy red phosphorus since it was cheaper, and then distill it (boil it to a gas and condense the gas) to make white phosphorus.
I thought that was insanely dangerous.
But not as insane as someone who thinks the President of the United States would go into a war zone and shoot tracer rounds.
(06-11-2017, 07:14 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2017, 06:49 PM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]Let me know when the official civilian body count is listed so we can talk about hyperbole.
That burden is on you pal. YOU posted a link with a misleading headline and got your panties in a wad after having not read the article of the link you posted.
I read it just fine and other unconfirmed reports on the event that claim multiple civilian deaths occurred. But let's not talk about how its use over populated areas is universally advised against. Let's bring in Russia or say it is fake. If any civilians were killed, it's their own fault for allowing ISIS to take their neighborhood by force.
(06-11-2017, 06:50 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/chec...and-syria/
Sure there's international humanitarian law that says this shouldn't be done as it can cause chemical burns on civilians that go to the bone, but "he's new to this," so let's just watch how this gets ignored or excused. Because if Obama did this, you would also hear crickets.
Wow. You really have nothing better to do than to make a big deal out of something that hasn't even been confirmed?
And as others pointed out already, this stuff is used for many purposes and possible collateral damage is always considered when deciding whether or not to use it.
Apparently something that looked like white phosphorous (Iraqi forces said it wasn't WP) was used in Mosul last week to provide cover for civilians fleeing from ISIL.
It also remains unclear if it was WP that was used in Iraq and/or Syria. This story is one day old so unless something happened today to refute it, it's a non-starter as far as the truth of it is concerned. If they did use it against civilian populations then I fully expect folks to be held responsible. Until there is proof there is nothing to cry about. It's like saying someone is guilty without all of the facts. Conjecture means nothing.
Link
Gotta love the lengths some will go to in order to twist something to fit their anti-Trump narrative.
There was a report just yesterday talking about how compared to the micromanaging that was done under Bush and Obama, Trump has taken a more hands-off approach to allow the military to do their job without having to worry about how the White House would need to frame a political narrative. The OP is trying desperately to link something that more than likely will turn out to be yet another non-story to Trump because that's what the left does. They're like Pavlov's dogs. Ring a bell and you can pretty much predict their reaction.
(06-12-2017, 04:07 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]Gotta love the lengths some will go to in order to twist something to fit their anti-Trump narrative.
There was a report just yesterday talking about how compared to the micromanaging that was done under Bush and Obama, Trump has taken a more hands-off approach to allow the military to do their job without having to worry about how the White House would need to frame a political narrative. The OP is trying desperately to link something that more than likely will turn out to be yet another non-story to Trump because that's what the left does. They're like Pavlov's dogs. Ring a bell and you can pretty much predict their reaction.
The original post indicated it should not have been done. No matter who it was under. And predictably it was excused because of who it was under by the usual suspects. The same people who would be blasting Obama if this happened under him.
"No matter how white phosphorus is used, it poses a high risk of horrific and long-lasting harm in crowded cities like Raqqa and Mosul and any other areas with concentrations of civilians. US-led forces should take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm when using white phosphorus in Iraq and Syria."
As for Trump's hands off approach, the article I posted in this thread shows this approach is increasing civilian deaths. Those who repeatedly bashed Obama for his drone strikes are quiet as a church mouse that the Trump strategy is killing significantly more innocent bystanders.
Same as it ever was in the echo chamber. Any fact is subject to what it means for the party one supports.
(06-14-2017, 10:18 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2017, 04:07 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]Gotta love the lengths some will go to in order to twist something to fit their anti-Trump narrative.
There was a report just yesterday talking about how compared to the micromanaging that was done under Bush and Obama, Trump has taken a more hands-off approach to allow the military to do their job without having to worry about how the White House would need to frame a political narrative. The OP is trying desperately to link something that more than likely will turn out to be yet another non-story to Trump because that's what the left does. They're like Pavlov's dogs. Ring a bell and you can pretty much predict their reaction.
The original post indicated it should not have been done. No matter who it was under. And predictably it was excused because of who it was under by the usual suspects. The same people who would be blasting Obama if this happened under him.
"No matter how white phosphorus is used, it poses a high risk of horrific and long-lasting harm in crowded cities like Raqqa and Mosul and any other areas with concentrations of civilians. US-led forces should take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm when using white phosphorus in Iraq and Syria."
As for Trump's hands off approach, the article I posted in this thread shows this approach is increasing civilian deaths. Those who repeatedly bashed Obama for his drone strikes are quiet as a church mouse that the Trump strategy is killing significantly more innocent bystanders.
Same as it ever was in the echo chamber. Any fact is subject to what it means for the party one supports.
Not that I agree at all with civilians being collateral damage, but ISIS hides among civilian populations, so how does anyone fight them without there being collateral damage? There is no doubt they need to be neutralized because they are a serious threat to everyone so the question is, how do you fight an enemy that doesn't fight fair?
(06-14-2017, 10:18 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2017, 04:07 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]Gotta love the lengths some will go to in order to twist something to fit their anti-Trump narrative.
There was a report just yesterday talking about how compared to the micromanaging that was done under Bush and Obama, Trump has taken a more hands-off approach to allow the military to do their job without having to worry about how the White House would need to frame a political narrative. The OP is trying desperately to link something that more than likely will turn out to be yet another non-story to Trump because that's what the left does. They're like Pavlov's dogs. Ring a bell and you can pretty much predict their reaction.
The original post indicated it should not have been done. No matter who it was under. And predictably it was excused because of who it was under by the usual suspects. The same people who would be blasting Obama if this happened under him.
"No matter how white phosphorus is used, it poses a high risk of horrific and long-lasting harm in crowded cities like Raqqa and Mosul and any other areas with concentrations of civilians. US-led forces should take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm when using white phosphorus in Iraq and Syria."
As for Trump's hands off approach, the article I posted in this thread shows this approach is increasing civilian deaths. Those who repeatedly bashed Obama for his drone strikes are quiet as a church mouse that the Trump strategy is killing significantly more innocent bystanders.
Same as it ever was in the echo chamber. Any fact is subject to what it means for the party one supports.
You're so wrong. Most of those supporting it would support it no matter who was in leadership. We bashed him for his drone strikes on AMERICAN CITIZENS who have an expectation of trial by jury. You really don't worry about details at all in your anti-trump posting, do you?
(06-14-2017, 10:18 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2017, 04:07 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]Gotta love the lengths some will go to in order to twist something to fit their anti-Trump narrative.
There was a report just yesterday talking about how compared to the micromanaging that was done under Bush and Obama, Trump has taken a more hands-off approach to allow the military to do their job without having to worry about how the White House would need to frame a political narrative. The OP is trying desperately to link something that more than likely will turn out to be yet another non-story to Trump because that's what the left does. They're like Pavlov's dogs. Ring a bell and you can pretty much predict their reaction.
The original post indicated it should not have been done. No matter who it was under. And predictably it was excused because of who it was under by the usual suspects. The same people who would be blasting Obama if this happened under him.
"No matter how white phosphorus is used, it poses a high risk of horrific and long-lasting harm in crowded cities like Raqqa and Mosul and any other areas with concentrations of civilians. US-led forces should take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm when using white phosphorus in Iraq and Syria."
As for Trump's hands off approach, the article I posted in this thread shows this approach is increasing civilian deaths. Those who repeatedly bashed Obama for his drone strikes are quiet as a church mouse that the Trump strategy is killing significantly more innocent bystanders.
Same as it ever was in the echo chamber. Any fact is subject to what it means for the party one supports.
Those who bashed Obama for his limp-wristed approach to conducting a war recognize that in war, there is always going to be collateral damage, especially when the spineless enemy you're dealing with hides among the civilian population.
The use of WP in the manner the US military does is not forbidden. You should try to dig up an article that says the increasing use of explosives in war zones poses a high risk of horrific and long lasting harm in crowded cities like Raqqa. It would have the same level of relevance. War ain't pretty, and it's impossible to be surgical when your enemy is using human shields.
My viewpoint has nothing to do with party. My viewpoint has much to do with having at least one foot in reality, not the fantasy world you and your buddies live in where war is run by drones, and only the bad guys get killed. Even your beloved messiah killed civilians with his video game approach to war. It's sad, but it happens. The only time Trump was actually criticized by anyone for his drone strikes was when he went after US citizens, and even then, it was barely a ripple in the water because your pals in the media just ignored it. Oddly enough, the first military assault under Trump had civilian casualties, and you would have thought the media stumbled across the story of the century.
(06-14-2017, 10:18 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2017, 04:07 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]Gotta love the lengths some will go to in order to twist something to fit their anti-Trump narrative.
There was a report just yesterday talking about how compared to the micromanaging that was done under Bush and Obama, Trump has taken a more hands-off approach to allow the military to do their job without having to worry about how the White House would need to frame a political narrative. The OP is trying desperately to link something that more than likely will turn out to be yet another non-story to Trump because that's what the left does. They're like Pavlov's dogs. Ring a bell and you can pretty much predict their reaction.
The original post indicated it should not have been done. No matter who it was under. And predictably it was excused because of who it was under by the usual suspects. The same people who would be blasting Obama if this happened under him.
"No matter how white phosphorus is used, it poses a high risk of horrific and long-lasting harm in crowded cities like Raqqa and Mosul and any other areas with concentrations of civilians. US-led forces should take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm when using white phosphorus in Iraq and Syria."
As for Trump's hands off approach, the article I posted in this thread shows this approach is increasing civilian deaths. Those who repeatedly bashed Obama for his drone strikes are quiet as a church mouse that the Trump strategy is killing significantly more innocent bystanders.
Same as it ever was in the echo chamber. Any fact is subject to what it means for the party one supports.
Quoted from the article YOU posted:
"U.S. Army Col. Ryan Dillon, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition fighting in Iraq and Syria, would not confirm the use of the munition but said in an email that the U.S. military uses it in “accordance with the law of armed conflict” and that white phosphorus rounds are “used for screening, obscuring, and marking in a way that fully considers the possible incidental effects on civilians and civilian structures.”
“The coalition takes all reasonable precautions to minimize the risk of incidental injury to non-combatants and damage to civilian structures,” he said."
But maybe you are right. They should have not attempted to obscure the fleeing civilians path out of there by using WP. They should have let the terrorist pick them off at will as they ran away.
(06-14-2017, 10:48 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Besides, if you really tfhink Trump knows what white phosphorus is, you're overestimating his intelligence.
That'll never happen.
No kidding, you guys act like he's a special needs kid or something, to your detriment. Just shows how bad your TDS really is.