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.
(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.
I read the article you linked, and I would say your headline " US Military Uses White Phosphorus in Densely Populated Areas of Mosul" is unfair.
This:
"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."
And this:
"Mary Wareham, the advocacy director at Human Rights Watch’s arms division, said in email that the group is still trying to determine the veracity of the videos."
So, pardon me if I don't get all bent out of shape about this. Besides, if you really think Trump knows what white phosphorus is, you're overestimating his intelligence.
So.. I'll mark that down as one for "excusing it."
Translation, no smoking gun about Russia so what else do we have to complain about.
(06-11-2017, 08:02 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Translation, no smoking gun about Russia so what else do we have to complain about.
Translation: I cannot defend this, so I am going to use the "this is a deflection" deflection because I cannot say anything critical of anything done on Trump's watch even though I would be openly blasting Obama if this had happened under him.
This has nothing to do with Russia. As for your assertion there is no smoking gun, okay... Sure.. Don't muddy the waters here with that nonsense when there are plenty of other discussions in the echo chamber for you to show your naivete on that topic..
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)
(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.
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?
(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.
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?
You mean like the New York Times and Al Jazeera?
(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.
Blaming the president for a military tactic decision is pathetic, whether Trump or Obama is in office at the time. Presidents don't micromanage the military.
And "appear" is a waffle word. What it says is that they don't know but are willing to Blame America First again.
(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.
White Phosphorus is also used routinely as an illumination flare to light up a large dark area to expose the enemy...It is shot up in the air like an ordinary flare, but the burning effect burns so bright in the sky it lights up a huge area on the ground...We used them in the Navy when the little Iranian Boghammer boats would come near our ship in the middle of the night to light them up so they had no cover...Infantry units use them in the field where they can't pinpoint the enemy as well
(06-11-2017, 07:04 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Besides, if you really think Trump knows what white phosphorus is, you're overestimating his intelligence.
"White phosphorus? I thought it was called a White Russian. Why are we giving ISIS a drink?"
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.
(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.
Maybe you missed this part in the article you linked to..."
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." and "[font=Georgia]“White phosphorus should not be air burst over populated areas due to its indiscriminate effect but it’s not clear from available information that civilians are in the area,” Wareham said." and " [font=Georgia]In the days leading up to the battle in the city, U.S.-backed Syrian fighters called on civilians to evacuate prior to the offensive, but after commencing their attack, they’ve now told those inside to shelter in their homes and avoid Islamic State positions." [/font][/font]
So...We are using WP in according to the law of armed conflict, we are trying to avoid civilian casualties, and collateral damage, we even warned the civilians in the area to get out of the area before using WP, and they really don't have any idea if there are any civilians left in the area... Sounds to me like we are using this weapon very carefully and even warning civilians they should leave, I think we are being too damm nice...
(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.
Perhaps it's because you base the premise of your arguments on 'if Obama...'.
(06-11-2017, 11:53 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (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.
Perhaps it's because you base the premise of your arguments on 'if Obama...'.
Actually that's a subtext. It's all the same here though. Anything done with an ® next to it is good. Like when the Republicans took all the regulations off Wall St. again this week by dismantling Dodd-Frank. There is a blind agreement that this was done to make America great again. Because when the housing market crashed it was awesome.
It matters little. This section of the board is where independent thought goes to die. And sadly, where a number of people think they are the smartest, most informed people in the world. It's old hat.
we should just go back to blowing people up with drones like we did in the obama tenure, much more civilized.~
(06-11-2017, 12:50 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (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.
Care to provide a link?
My apologies.. The link I saw from FOX was for an event which took place prior to this. Safe to say this did not really happen since FOX has not yet reported on it. You dodged a real bullet there.. It must be fake news then.. or yellow journalism.. or should give you some other excuse to refute it actually happened.. or happened that way.. or that any civilians were killed because of its use. Does this still apply when/if FOX reports on it tomorrow or buries it in an article next week?
(06-11-2017, 01:00 PM)realtorpat Wrote: [ -> ]we should just go back to blowing people up with drones like we did in the obama tenure, much more civilized.~
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/arch...ook-office
Nobody is more civilized than Trump..
(06-11-2017, 09:07 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2017, 08:02 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Translation, no smoking gun about Russia so what else do we have to complain about.
Translation: I cannot defend this, so I am going to use the "this is a deflection" deflection because I cannot say anything critical of anything done on Trump's watch even though I would be openly blasting Obama if this had happened under him.
This has nothing to do with Russia. As for your assertion there is no smoking gun, okay... Sure.. Don't muddy the waters here with that nonsense when there are plenty of other discussions in the echo chamber for you to show your naivete on that topic..
Dude you lumped Marty in as a Trumpet after he used quotes with in the article to verify that there is nothing here except hyperbole and and a misleading headline. Did you even read the text below the headline? Doubtful but we get it #becausetrump...