Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MOD_Oracle, Nov 17, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
MPs Call For Tighter Rules On Battlefield Use Of Phosphorus
Isn't it amazing how many MPs will jump on a press-orchestrated bandwagon? Sincerity? Those scrotes can't even spell it.
Does anyone know if this bit is actually true? That Brits are not allowed to aim it at enemy combatants?
I see the Guardian article also makes the mistake of implying WP is a chemical weapon...
This article will clarify for some the issue of WP and the US use of it. There are alot of weapons out there that can really ruin someone's day. For example thermobaric weapons. There is no getting around the fact that weapons kill and hurt people. Maybe the politicians will try and get IED's banned ?
Muh.... I can never get my head around issues of "good" & "bad" weapons.
Mr Reid told reporters during a visit to a Nato exercise in Germany that the British army only used white phosphorus to provide smokescreen cover on operations.
I'd agree with the above quote, burning terrorists provide an excellent smokescreen!
re Brits and WP
why no WP? surly any weapon is really nasty. no bayonets next? well they are sharp arent they. we might cut someone.
I was fascinated to learn that WP is a napalm like substance that melts flesh to the bone
I'd never realised that it was a compound related to petroleum distilates that requires a source of ignition. I'd always assumed, clearly erroneously, that it was a basic element with it's own slot in the periodic table which ignited spontaneously upon contact with oxygen.
I'd also been labouring under the missapprehension that it burnt flesh, rather than somehow 'melting' it. Wrong agian obviously.
Thanks heavens for the careful research and measured reporting of the Grauniad journalist, eh?
Letâs simply make a law saying that only MPs can use weapons of any type. Then next time they stay up playing Command & Conquer all night and fancy a go at the real thing its them sweating there cobs off in 50 degree heat unsure if they can use anything more dangerous than harsh language.
Mines,WP-what ever next,soon only harsh language will be allowed in battle and then only after approval that it is PC and does not hurt any feelings.
Going to be a big surge in handbag sales soon to MOD as new weapon perhaps?
Harsh language? Where have you been? The liberal elite banned that years ago. If we can't bellow harsh language at our own what chance is there of being allowed to use it on the poor, poor enemy?
Handbags? - someone call the Thought Police - there's a sexist on this site
As a civvy, can someone enlighten me please. I assumed that insurgent\ terrorist\guerilla forces, by their very nature are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Is this correct?
The Geneva convention was amended in 1949 to cover guerilla/insurgent/resistance type forces with certain conditions. The motivation being to ensure that it was possible to nail Nazis for their war crimes against the French Maquis.
Maybe we should change the law so that only people who have served in a war zone are allowed to stand as an MP... Might make them a bit more thoughtful about their responsibilities.
Separate names with a comma.