Watched it, looks more like a SLR camera to me. Pretty small for an RPG.
Well, that must be it then. Apparently 1.3m (52") long SLR cameras can be found in poor countries emerging from sanctions these days. Are SLR cameras known for stretching from a man's arm pit to the ground? Are their owners are prone to both swinging them around, and resting them lens first on the ground? Oddly enough, 1.3m also happens to be the length of an RPG. Hmmm, do SLR cameras have pistol grips and go boom? If not, you probably saw one of these".
Watch the video full screen, go to time 3:37, look at the group of men above the cursor. Several of them are pretty clearly carrying weapons. The hefty guy on the left is swinging an AK. The guy to his right is carrying an RPG. Look again at time 4:50 at the man at 11:00 above the cursor, and watch him carefully. As he ducks down at 4:52-4:53 you can see his weapon.
Only a blind man or a fool sees weapons in that video.
Some men will not see what is plainly seen to avoid having to question their own beliefs.
I know you are going for the bullshit baffles brains crap
No, what I'm going for is to be correct on the subject, something you aren't achieving, and don't seem interested in.
White phosphorus is used to generate smoke or in a flare, it is not considered a chemical weapon but when it is targeted at people it is a chemical weapon
No, it is never a chemical weapon as defined in treaty and common usage in the military. It is an incendiary, a flame weapon - it sets things on fire - it burns at 800C. When you get a chunk of it on you as it burns at 800C, you get burnt - that is how you are wounded.
Here is a list of chemical weapons. Could you point out all of the chemical weapons that create their casualty effect by burning at 800C? 500C? 300? 100C?
You can't, because they don't. Blister agents produce chemical burns, nerve agents interfere with the central nervous system sending messages, blood agents prevent you blood from carrying oxygen, and choking agents damage the lungs.
There aren't any flame weapons in that list - white phosphorous isn't there, and neither is napalm. Flame weapons are a different category of weapon. White phosphorous doesn't poison, choke, cause you to suffocate because it binds the hemoglobin in your blood, or damage your lungs - it burns at 800C.
If white phosphorous is used as a weapon during a battle in a manner consistent with the law of war, it isn't criminal, or murderous. The only propaganda BS here is yours.
This is a question of fact, not your personal opinion, not your political beliefs. This is a question of treaty, not the names you call. You want the treaty and common usage to say something else, but they don't. Too bad.
White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon as defined in the chemical weapons convention and as understood in the military. Its use is completely legal as long as proper guidelines are observed, much as they have to be for any other weapon.
This talks about phosphorous in pesticides, which is a different allotrope of phosphorous known as yellow phosphorous.
White phosphorus and yellow phosphorus are the same substance called by two names. The other allotropes are black, red, and violet. Although it doesn't really matter, the section I quoted is about white phosphorus.
Next, thanks for the link. It is an interesting paper. However, I will draw your attention to this section, which is the scenario under discussion, which is dermal application of solid white phosphorous, not ingestion or inhalation of various forms:
2.2.4.1 Death A high rate of mortality (12 of 27) in humans occurred following accidental explosions from ignited white phosphorus in munitions factories (Walker et al. 1947). The workers that died had third-degree burns over 35-90% of their body surface. Those surviving had burns over 19% of the body surface. These burn cases followed a course that was “indistinguishable” from that of nonphosphorus related third-degree burns. Thus, death apparently resulted from the burns alone, with no contributing factor from white phosphorus.
This agrees with the text I quoted.
So, we are once again back to the point: White phosphorous is an incendiary that produces casualty effect through thermal burns, and that is the overwhelming effect. White phosphorous is not a chemical weapon as that term is understood by treaty and common understanding, even when used against troops. Flame weapons are not grouped with chemical weapons.
Some people are politically compelled to call white phosphorous a chemical weapons, but it isn't true.
Who exactly are angel investors, and how do I know if they are an appropriate funding source for my company?
Guy Kawasaki's response:
Broadly defined, angel investors are high net-worth individuals who invest in entrepreneurial companies, usually at an early stage. Like institutional venture capital firms, many angel investors provide cash to young companies and take equity in return. One difference is that angel investors typically invest smaller amounts of money in individual companies than venture capitalists do, making them a possible resource for companies that have exhausted their "friends and family" financing options but are not ready to approach VCs for capital
It however becomes a chemical weapon in the second stage, as WP that burns through skin into tissue will likely be absorbed by normal human metabolism, causing severe damage to kidneys, liver and heart.
Essentially even if the victim survives the being burned, he/she will likely need treatment for severe chemical poisoning (phosphorous poisoning) or risk heart/kidney/liver/multiple organ failure.
Not according to this source:
Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, 2nd edition, Volume 1, by Robert Irving Krieger, p. 1400
Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion
Phosphorus is absorbed from the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts. It can cause severe burns to the skin, but it is said that not enough is absorbed from the burned areas to cause systemic poisoning. The dead tissue may be protective by permitting time for complete oxidation to phosphoric acid. Whether dilute formulations such as may occur in the gastrointestinal tract would be absorbed from the skin in harmful amounts has not be tested.
Unreacted elemental phosphorous may be demonstrated in the tissues of people who die several days after ingesting phosphorous but not in those who die after longer periods.
Phosphorous is a waxy and translucent solid that undergoes spontaneous ignition on contact with air. Burns result from contact with either the solid or liquid form.
Spontaneous ignition results in rapid oxidation forming phosphorus pentoxide. This then combines with water to form phosphoric acid www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm).
When phosphorus comes into contact with skin the resultant burn causes a painful, necrotic, yellow wound with a garlic-like odour. Particles of phosphorus embedded in the skin continue to burn as part of an exothermic reaction until the products are removed.
WP is used in weapons because it spontaneously ignites in air and burns very hot while producing large amounts of smoke.
The writer in the Guardian either doesn't know what he is talking about, or is lying for political purposes.
You seem to think you are fighting me, but you're not. You are fighting chemistry and a treaty with specific meanings. The fact that you and the Guardian don't like what is, doesn't change it.
WP, as used in weapons, causes thermal burns, not chemical burns. It is the difference between: burned by a chemical itself versus being burned by the heat of a chemical on fire. Stick your hand in a bucket of gasoline - are you burned by it? No. Light it on fire - now will you be burned? Yes. Change the bucket to hydrochloric acid. Try to light it on fire. Does it burn? No. Stick your hand in it. Will it burn you? Yes, badly.
A chemical burn occurs when living tissue is exposed to a corrosive substance such as a strong acid or base. Chemical burns follow standard burn classification and may cause extensive tissue damage. The main types of irritant and/or corrosive products are: acids, bases, oxidizers, solvents, reducing agents and alkylants. Additionally, chemical burns can be caused by some types of chemical weapons e.g. vesicants such as mustard gas and Lewisite, or urticants such as phosgene oxime.
Chemical burns may: - need no source of heat, - occur immediately on contact, - be extremely painful, or - not be immediately evident or noticeable - diffuse into tissue and damage structures under skin without immediately apparent damage to skin surface
Note that WP does not appear in the above. Why? Because WP produces thermal burns.
WP is not a chemical weapon as that term is generally understood. It is a chemical being used as a weapon because it burns.
Although you no doubt put great stock in the opinions of writers in the Guardian, the treaty is authoritative.
The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:
"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.
"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
Technically, the reported employment of tear gas by Argentine forces during the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands constitutes chemical warfare.[58] However, the tear gas grenades were employed as nonlethal weapons to avoid British casualties. The barrack buildings the weapons were used on proved to be deserted in any case. The British claim that more lethal, but legally-justifiable as they are not considered chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention, white phosphorus grenades were used.[59]
In summary, WP and Napalm are not chemical weapons as that term is understood. They are incendiary weapons, chemicals used as weapons because they burn (thermally).
Here are words that you never thought you’d hear a Pakistani general utter about the drone strikes that batter Pakistan’s tribal areas: “A majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements.”
That would be yawn-worthy if it came from the CIA, which never misses an opportunity to credit its drone strikes with taking out al-Qaeda and its affiliates. But it was the main message of an official briefing from Maj. Gen. Ghayur Mehmood in Miram Shah. He’s the commander of Pakistan’s Seventh Division, charged with leading troops in North Waziristan.
“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”
He even brought stats. According to the general, “about 164 drone strikes have occurred since 2007 — the New America Foundation tallies 226 since 2004 — have killed “over 964 terrorists.” Of those, 793 were Pakistanis and 171 were foreigners, “including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.” (Filipinos? Huh.) Only “a few civilians” have been killed, he said.
It's a pity you apparently didn't actually read the Wikipedia article you quoted, or you might have thought twice about posting it.
al Qaeda response
Messages recovered from Osama bin Laden's home after his death in 2011, including one from then al Qaeda No. 3, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman reportedly, according to the Agence France-Presse and the Washington Post, expressed frustration with the drone strikes in Pakistan. According to an unnamed U.S. Government official, in his message al-Rahman complained that drone-launched missiles were killing al Qaeda operatives faster than they could be replaced.[434][435][436]
In June and July 2011, law enforcement authorities found messages on al Qaeda-linked websites calling for attacks against executives of drone aircraft manufacturer AeroVironment. Law enforcement believed that the messages were in response to calls for action against Americans by Adam Yahiye Gadahn.[437] . . ..
Reactions from people in Waziristan
Between November 2008 and January 2009 Pakistani Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy conducted a survey of the public opinion about the drone strikes in Federally Administered Tribal Areas. 5 teams of 5 researchers each interviewed a total of 550 people from all walks of life. Most people thought that the drone attacks were accurate and did not lead to anti-American sentiment and were effective in damaging the militants.[399]
Based on the responses the researchers concluded 'The popular notion outside the Pakhtun belt that a large majority of the local population supports the Taliban movement lacks substance'. Most people thought that the drone attacks were accurate and did not lead to anti-American sentiment and were effective in damaging the militants. In addition the locals wanted the Pakistani forces to also target the militants.[443] According to Farhat Taj a member of AIRRA the drones have never killed any civilians. Some people in Waziristan compare the drones to Ababils, the holy swallows sent by God to avenge Abraha, the invader of the Khana Kaaba.[444]
In an analysis published in Daily Times (Pakistan) on 2 January 2010 Farhat Taj, a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo and a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy discussed the issue of drone attacks with hundreds
Nice try, but White Phosphorous and Napalm are not "chemical weapons", the Guardian notwithstanding. They are not being used to poison, but to burn. They are incendiary weapons, also known as flame weapons, and are not covered under the Chemical Weapons Convention in that capacity.
The use of flame weapons, such as Fougasse, the M202A1 Flash, white phosphorous, thermobaric, and other incendiary agents, against military targets is not a violation of current international law. They should not, however, be employed to just cause unnecessary suffering to individuals.
Europeans often point out to Americans the higher turn-outs in their elections. They aren't quite to up Chicago standards, but it is a respectable showing none the less.
Your post would have been considerably shortened if you had simply summarized it as the US fought Communism around the globe. That is why so many countries are free today. It is a good thing too or else the bloody, oppressive march of communism would have continued. Contrary to what you wrote, Communism was a world wide conspiracy, and a bloody one at that. Sadly I don't have enough time at the moment to correct all of the twisted renderings of facts in your post, as it would be a Herculean task. I think just comparing the history of the Berlin Wall to what you wrote might give a sense of how twisted the history you give is.
Before the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between
The Soviet Union conquered Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and annexed them. At the ends of WW2 it took part of Poland as its own territory. The Soviets turned the governments of East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and the rest of Eastern Europe into not merely client states, but puppet states.
The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's policy of forced collectivization. The heaviest losses occurred in Ukraine, which had been the most productive agricultural area of the Soviet Union. Stalin was determined to crush all vestiges of Ukrainian nationalism. Thus, the famine was accompanied by a devastating purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and the Ukrainian Communist party itself. The famine broke the peasants' will to resist collectivization and left Ukraine politically, socially, and psychologically traumatized.
The policy of all-out collectivization instituted by Stalin in 1929 to finance industri
Unlikely. The British empire combined with the SU would have defeated Germany and Italy.
Unlikely. Both the British and the Soviets were recipients of enormous amounts of weapons, war material, food, and other items as part of the US Lend-Lease program. The Soviets were given more than 430,000 motor vehicles, including the all important reliable supply truck. Without those the Soviet Army tactical supply echelon would have been badly crippled.
If the US didn't join the war, the Allies would have lost the use of the enormous air forces brought in by the US, in addition to the large, well equipped American army. I doubt the UK and USSR would achieve better than either a stalemate or a much longer war without the American supplies, weapons, war materials, and food, and millions of fresh, well equipped American troops. Just look at the issue of landing craft necessary for an invasion - that alone was an enormous US contribution.
On the flip side, I'm not sure victory without Atomic weapons would have been possible any time soon without the Soviet Army in the war. And Britain's stand against the Axis powers greatly shortened the war. Everyone had their part to play.
The vast quantities of American trucks with USA serials provided, were so common in Eastern Europe in 1944/45, that common folk-lore interpreted the stenciled letters as Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa - Kill that Son-of-a-bitch Adolf.
And I agree with the OP - we are being prepared for trouble with Iran.
Its awfully big of you to overlook the truck bombs that the Iranians occasionally have delivered to Americans or American allies to clear out a market place or appartment building of breathing people.
Anyone else sick of these re-runs? For the past month the anti-Iranian propaganda has really ratcheted up. We're seeing the same tactics they used to scare the public in to supporting an invasion of Iraq.
Should we be checking your post for secret clues as to your location and who is holding you hostage and forcing you to read and post on this issue? There are plenty of other stories on the front page to read and comment on. I think most people would consider apparent state sponsored DDOS attacks to be interesting and newsworthy.
You should probably change the title of your post to, "Iran threatens its neighbors, Europe, the US, and some other country they want to remove from the pages of history." You didn't post anything about how convenient those the US bases in nearby countries make Iranian or Iranian backed attacks against US forces performing missions in those other countries. Also, I notice that Iranian bases and activities aren't depicted on the map - I suppose that would challenge the narrative of "poor little Iran". I will also note that this post is barely skimming the surface of Iran's activities. For instance, it doesn't cover much of anything about Iran's activities in Syria, where it is helping prop up the current regime, or Lebanon, where its proxy Hezbollah is virtually a state within a state, and armed with 50,000 rockets to attack Israel.
Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf monarchies are buying huge amounts of advanced arms from the United States and Europe. The weaponry is clearly aimed to counter the growing threat they see coming from Iran.
The United States alone has around $100 billion in potential sales in the pipeline right now. The biggest is a Saudi deal, initiated in 2010 and approved by Congress, totaling around $60 billion. The package includes jets, helicopters, hundreds of Harpoon anti-ship missiles, training, and logistical services. Israel, initially worried about the sale, agreed — after U.S. assurances — to support it in September
Brigadier-General Hossein Salami of Iran's Revolutionary Guard warned Sunday that Iran has the power to cut Europe's energy supply. The warning was issued as European leaders prepared to debate sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.
"Iran sits on 50 percent of the world's energy, and if it wants, Europe will spend the winter in the cold,” Salami told Iranian troops in the city of Kerman. His speech was published by the Iranian Fars news agency.
Considerable attention is being given to Iranian threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large proportion of the world’s petroleum sails. The U.S Energy Information Administration estimates that “almost 17 million barrels in 2011, up from between 15.5-16.0 million bbl/d in 2009-2010,” sails past Iranian gun and missile emplacements along the coast, mine-laying ships, and Revolutionary Guard fast boats. In 2011, that amounted to “roughly 35 percent of all seaborne traded oil, or almost 20 percent of oil traded worldwide.”
Yet the recent visit of two Iranian naval vessels to the Saudi Red Sea port of Jeddah should draw attention to two more vital naval chokepoints—the Bab el Mandeb Strait at the southern tip of the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal located between the northern tip of the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. (See this map.) More than three million barrels of oil pass through the Bab el Mandeb every day on the way to the Suez Canal and the SUMED (Suez-Mediterranean) pipeline used by tankers that are too big to traverse the Can
That wouldn't help at all. The Islamists still want to convert the world to the Islamic faith and Sharia law, and unite it under a single Muslim government - the Caliphate - combining church and state. Read Bin Laden's Letter to America - they ultimately want the same for every country - convert to Islam and establish their flavor of Sharia law. They will keep killing people and overthrowing governments if they can.
Iran has threatened to cut off Europe's oil during winter with the expressed purpose that people freeze to death. That has nothing to do with Jews. You apparently don't understand the problems, can't identify a useful solution, and substitute genocidal fantasies in their place. That doesn't bode well for you.
On this we strongly agree; would that it were not so. I think we've caused more humans living on this planet to suffer in real terms through our actions.
In his introduction, Stephane Courtois himself a former communist, breaks with the postwar taboo on comparing the Gulag with the Holocaust. He notes that the communist body count of more than 100 million exceeds that of the Nazis. He compares the "class genocide" of communism with the "race genocide" of Nazism and states that both were "crimes against humanity." So controversial was this comparison that two of Mr. Courtois's editor-collaborators--Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin--later distanced themselves from what he wrote. And predictably, the French left lashed itself into a frenzy, denouncing the book's contributors for traducing the noble communist fight against fascism.
Greece has been living beyond its means since even before it joined the euro. After it adopted the euro, public spending soared and public sector wages practically doubled.
However, while money has flowed out of the government's coffers, its income has been hit by widespread tax evasion.
When the global financial downturn hit, Greece was ill-prepared to cope.
Other than the fact that Iranian back militias we repeatedly found with new Iranian arms, and Quds force officers were arrested in Iraq? Not to mention that Iraqi militia took refuge in Iran?
Iran cooperated closely with the US occupation in Iraq and with the current Shia-led government.
Iran also tried hard to subvert the Iraqi government through bribes, threats, violence, and other means.
Iran was involved in the training of the new Iraqi Army and police and was involved in equipping them.
Iran had very little to do with training the Iraqi Army and police, let alone equipping them. That has almost entirely been the work of the US, NATO, and other Coalition members, which doesn't include Iran. Iran has been active in commercial development, however.
Slashdot Mirror
Watched it, looks more like a SLR camera to me. Pretty small for an RPG.
Well, that must be it then. Apparently 1.3m (52") long SLR cameras can be found in poor countries emerging from sanctions these days. Are SLR cameras known for stretching from a man's arm pit to the ground? Are their owners are prone to both swinging them around, and resting them lens first on the ground? Oddly enough, 1.3m also happens to be the length of an RPG. Hmmm, do SLR cameras have pistol grips and go boom? If not, you probably saw one of these".
An Unholy Alliance Down Under
Watch the video full screen, go to time 3:37, look at the group of men above the cursor. Several of them are pretty clearly carrying weapons. The hefty guy on the left is swinging an AK. The guy to his right is carrying an RPG. Look again at time 4:50 at the man at 11:00 above the cursor, and watch him carefully. As he ducks down at 4:52-4:53 you can see his weapon.
Only a blind man or a fool sees weapons in that video.
Some men will not see what is plainly seen to avoid having to question their own beliefs.
I know you are going for the bullshit baffles brains crap
No, what I'm going for is to be correct on the subject, something you aren't achieving, and don't seem interested in.
White phosphorus is used to generate smoke or in a flare, it is not considered a chemical weapon but when it is targeted at people it is a chemical weapon
No, it is never a chemical weapon as defined in treaty and common usage in the military. It is an incendiary, a flame weapon - it sets things on fire - it burns at 800C. When you get a chunk of it on you as it burns at 800C, you get burnt - that is how you are wounded.
Here is a list of chemical weapons. Could you point out all of the chemical weapons that create their casualty effect by burning at 800C? 500C? 300? 100C?
Blister Agents: Phosgene Oximine, Lewisite, Sulfur Mustard, Nitrogen Mustard
Nerve Agents: Tabun, Sarin, Soman, Cyclosarin, VX
Blood Agents: Cyanogen chloride, Hydrogen cyanide
Choking Agents: Chloropicrin, Phosgene, Diphosgene, Chlorine
You can't, because they don't. Blister agents produce chemical burns, nerve agents interfere with the central nervous system sending messages, blood agents prevent you blood from carrying oxygen, and choking agents damage the lungs.
There aren't any flame weapons in that list - white phosphorous isn't there, and neither is napalm. Flame weapons are a different category of weapon. White phosphorous doesn't poison, choke, cause you to suffocate because it binds the hemoglobin in your blood, or damage your lungs - it burns at 800C.
. . . literal interpretations to hide murderous criminal actions behind propaganda bullshit.
If white phosphorous is used as a weapon during a battle in a manner consistent with the law of war, it isn't criminal, or murderous. The only propaganda BS here is yours.
This is a question of fact, not your personal opinion, not your political beliefs. This is a question of treaty, not the names you call. You want the treaty and common usage to say something else, but they don't. Too bad.
White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon as defined in the chemical weapons convention and as understood in the military. Its use is completely legal as long as proper guidelines are observed, much as they have to be for any other weapon.
This talks about phosphorous in pesticides, which is a different allotrope of phosphorous known as yellow phosphorous.
White phosphorus and yellow phosphorus are the same substance called by two names. The other allotropes are black, red, and violet. Although it doesn't really matter, the section I quoted is about white phosphorus.
Next, thanks for the link. It is an interesting paper. However, I will draw your attention to this section, which is the scenario under discussion, which is dermal application of solid white phosphorous, not ingestion or inhalation of various forms:
This agrees with the text I quoted.
So, we are once again back to the point: White phosphorous is an incendiary that produces casualty effect through thermal burns, and that is the overwhelming effect. White phosphorous is not a chemical weapon as that term is understood by treaty and common understanding, even when used against troops. Flame weapons are not grouped with chemical weapons.
Some people are politically compelled to call white phosphorous a chemical weapons, but it isn't true.
So, which will be the first commercial and non-commercial distributions to get it?
Guy Kawasaki on Angel Investors
Who exactly are angel investors, and how do I know if they are an appropriate funding source for my company?
Guy Kawasaki's response:
Broadly defined, angel investors are high net-worth individuals who invest in entrepreneurial companies, usually at an early stage. Like institutional venture capital firms, many angel investors provide cash to young companies and take equity in return. One difference is that angel investors typically invest smaller amounts of money in individual companies than venture capitalists do, making them a possible resource for companies that have exhausted their "friends and family" financing options but are not ready to approach VCs for capital
It however becomes a chemical weapon in the second stage, as WP that burns through skin into tissue will likely be absorbed by normal human metabolism, causing severe damage to kidneys, liver and heart.
Essentially even if the victim survives the being burned, he/she will likely need treatment for severe chemical poisoning (phosphorous poisoning) or risk heart/kidney/liver/multiple organ failure.
Not according to this source:
Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, 2nd edition, Volume 1, by Robert Irving Krieger, p. 1400
Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion
Phosphorus is absorbed from the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts. It can cause severe burns to the skin, but it is said that not enough is absorbed from the burned areas to cause systemic poisoning. The dead tissue may be protective by permitting time for complete oxidation to phosphoric acid. Whether dilute formulations such as may occur in the gastrointestinal tract would be absorbed from the skin in harmful amounts has not be tested.
Unreacted elemental phosphorous may be demonstrated in the tissues of people who die several days after ingesting phosphorous but not in those who die after longer periods.
Treatment of white phosphorus and other chemical burn injuries at one burn center over a 51-year period. Fail.
If you're going to try to claim that White Phosphorous (AKA yellow phosphorous) doesn't burn by thermal action, you are fighting a losing battle.
I've highlighted the parts below that refer to heat producing chemical reactions (burning).
A review of chemical burns
Exothermic reaction
An exothermic reaction is a chemical reaction that releases energy in the form of light or heat.
Q&A: White phosphorus injuries
Your soy burger would be a cinder rather quickly at 800C, wouldn't it? What do you think happens to skin?
A youtube video helpful to understanding: Elementary Productions: White Phosphorus . Pay special attention starting at 1:38.
WP is used in weapons because it spontaneously ignites in air and burns very hot while producing large amounts of smoke.
The writer in the Guardian either doesn't know what he is talking about, or is lying for political purposes.
You seem to think you are fighting me, but you're not. You are fighting chemistry and a treaty with specific meanings. The fact that you and the Guardian don't like what is, doesn't change it.
WP, as used in weapons, causes thermal burns, not chemical burns. It is the difference between: burned by a chemical itself versus being burned by the heat of a chemical on fire. Stick your hand in a bucket of gasoline - are you burned by it? No. Light it on fire - now will you be burned? Yes. Change the bucket to hydrochloric acid. Try to light it on fire. Does it burn? No. Stick your hand in it. Will it burn you? Yes, badly.
Chemical burn
Note that WP does not appear in the above. Why? Because WP produces thermal burns.
WP is not a chemical weapon as that term is generally understood. It is a chemical being used as a weapon because it burns.
Although you no doubt put great stock in the opinions of writers in the Guardian, the treaty is authoritative.
White phosphorus: weapon on the edge
Chemical warfare
In summary, WP and Napalm are not chemical weapons as that term is understood. They are incendiary weapons, chemicals used as weapons because they burn (thermally).
I don't think you have a firm grasp of the subject you raised.
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome
It's a pity you apparently didn't actually read the Wikipedia article you quoted, or you might have thought twice about posting it.
Nice try, but White Phosphorous and Napalm are not "chemical weapons", the Guardian notwithstanding. They are not being used to poison, but to burn. They are incendiary weapons, also known as flame weapons, and are not covered under the Chemical Weapons Convention in that capacity.
Case Closed: Weapons Clearly Seen on Video of Reuters Reporters Killed in Iraq
You may want to read the documents from the official investigation which are seen at the bottom or the link above.
Since you're badly confused, and misinformed, this should help:
'Collateral Murder' in Baghdad Anything But
Europeans often point out to Americans the higher turn-outs in their elections. They aren't quite to up Chicago standards, but it is a respectable showing none the less.
Start the Day with Some Eurocrat Bashing
Shocker: Turkish think-tank recommends Turkey as model for "Arab Spring" revolutions
Losing Turkey to the Islamists
The Trouble With Turkey
‘Islam Is Islam, And That’s It’
Islamist Turkey vs. Secular Iran?
My apologies then.
But Greece was in trouble before the most recent loans, and heading for default.
As to suffering, any movement that manages to kill 100,000,000 people is going to produce suffering.
Here are a few links:
Living in the Gulag
What Were Their Crimes?
Stalin World - Lithuania
I suspect the Soviet system produced far more cruelty and suffering than you imagine.
Your post would have been considerably shortened if you had simply summarized it as the US fought Communism around the globe. That is why so many countries are free today. It is a good thing too or else the bloody, oppressive march of communism would have continued. Contrary to what you wrote, Communism was a world wide conspiracy, and a bloody one at that. Sadly I don't have enough time at the moment to correct all of the twisted renderings of facts in your post, as it would be a Herculean task. I think just comparing the history of the Berlin Wall to what you wrote might give a sense of how twisted the history you give is.
More information about: The Berlin Wall
And lets provide some background material:
Communism killed ~ 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.
Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?
What Were Their Crimes?
Have you ever been late to work?
In the Stalin era, a person who arrived late to work three times could be sent to the Gulag for three years.
Have you ever told a joke about a government official?
In the Stalin era, many were sent to the Gulag for up to 25 years for telling an innocent joke about a Communist Party official.
If your family was starving, would you take a few potatoes left in a field after harvest?
In the Stalin era, a person could be sent to the Gulag for up to ten years for such petty theft.
Living in the Gulag
Some claim that the US is militarist, but it has no custom like the annual military parade through Red Square.
Soviet Military Parade 1984
Stalin World - Lithuania
The KGB Museum - (the Museum of Genocide Victims)
The Soviet Union conquered Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and annexed them. At the ends of WW2 it took part of Poland as its own territory. The Soviets turned the governments of East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and the rest of Eastern Europe into not merely client states, but puppet states.
Revelations from the Russian Archives - UKRAINIAN FAMINE
The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's policy of forced collectivization. The heaviest losses occurred in Ukraine, which had been the most productive agricultural area of the Soviet Union. Stalin was determined to crush all vestiges of Ukrainian nationalism. Thus, the famine was accompanied by a devastating purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and the Ukrainian Communist party itself. The famine broke the peasants' will to resist collectivization and left Ukraine politically, socially, and psychologically traumatized.
The policy of all-out collectivization instituted by Stalin in 1929 to finance industri
Unlikely. The British empire combined with the SU would have defeated Germany and Italy.
Unlikely. Both the British and the Soviets were recipients of enormous amounts of weapons, war material, food, and other items as part of the US Lend-Lease program. The Soviets were given more than 430,000 motor vehicles, including the all important reliable supply truck. Without those the Soviet Army tactical supply echelon would have been badly crippled.
If the US didn't join the war, the Allies would have lost the use of the enormous air forces brought in by the US, in addition to the large, well equipped American army. I doubt the UK and USSR would achieve better than either a stalemate or a much longer war without the American supplies, weapons, war materials, and food, and millions of fresh, well equipped American troops. Just look at the issue of landing craft necessary for an invasion - that alone was an enormous US contribution.
On the flip side, I'm not sure victory without Atomic weapons would have been possible any time soon without the Soviet Army in the war. And Britain's stand against the Axis powers greatly shortened the war. Everyone had their part to play.
About as much as you are.
And I agree with the OP - we are being prepared for trouble with Iran.
Its awfully big of you to overlook the truck bombs that the Iranians occasionally have delivered to Americans or American allies to clear out a market place or appartment building of breathing people.
Anyone else sick of these re-runs? For the past month the anti-Iranian propaganda has really ratcheted up. We're seeing the same tactics they used to scare the public in to supporting an invasion of Iraq.
Should we be checking your post for secret clues as to your location and who is holding you hostage and forcing you to read and post on this issue? There are plenty of other stories on the front page to read and comment on. I think most people would consider apparent state sponsored DDOS attacks to be interesting and newsworthy.
OH NOES! IRAN THREATENS US AND UK!!!!
You should probably change the title of your post to, "Iran threatens its neighbors, Europe, the US, and some other country they want to remove from the pages of history." You didn't post anything about how convenient those the US bases in nearby countries make Iranian or Iranian backed attacks against US forces performing missions in those other countries. Also, I notice that Iranian bases and activities aren't depicted on the map - I suppose that would challenge the narrative of "poor little Iran". I will also note that this post is barely skimming the surface of Iran's activities. For instance, it doesn't cover much of anything about Iran's activities in Syria, where it is helping prop up the current regime, or Lebanon, where its proxy Hezbollah is virtually a state within a state, and armed with 50,000 rockets to attack Israel.
Gulf States on Arms Buying Binge to Counter Iran Threat
Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions - First Publish: 2/28/2010
Brigadier-General Hossein Salami of Iran's Revolutionary Guard warned Sunday that Iran has the power to cut Europe's energy supply. The warning was issued as European leaders prepared to debate sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.
"Iran sits on 50 percent of the world's energy, and if it wants, Europe will spend the winter in the cold,” Salami told Iranian troops in the city of Kerman. His speech was published by the Iranian Fars news agency.
Iran threatens to block Strait of Hormuz oil route
Iran threatens US Navy over Gulf activity - Warns US aircraft carrier not to return to Gulf waters
Iran Threatens Two More Naval Chokepoints - In addition to the Strait of Hormuz.
Considerable attention is being given to Iranian threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large proportion of the world’s petroleum sails. The U.S Energy Information Administration estimates that “almost 17 million barrels in 2011, up from between 15.5-16.0 million bbl/d in 2009-2010,” sails past Iranian gun and missile emplacements along the coast, mine-laying ships, and Revolutionary Guard fast boats. In 2011, that amounted to “roughly 35 percent of all seaborne traded oil, or almost 20 percent of oil traded worldwide.”
Yet the recent visit of two Iranian naval vessels to the Saudi Red Sea port of Jeddah should draw attention to two more vital naval chokepoints—the Bab el Mandeb Strait at the southern tip of the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal located between the northern tip of the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. (See this map.) More than three million barrels of oil pass through the Bab el Mandeb every day on the way to the Suez Canal and the SUMED (Suez-Mediterranean) pipeline used by tankers that are too big to traverse the Can
That wouldn't help at all. The Islamists still want to convert the world to the Islamic faith and Sharia law, and unite it under a single Muslim government - the Caliphate - combining church and state. Read Bin Laden's Letter to America - they ultimately want the same for every country - convert to Islam and establish their flavor of Sharia law. They will keep killing people and overthrowing governments if they can.
Iran has threatened to cut off Europe's oil during winter with the expressed purpose that people freeze to death. That has nothing to do with Jews. You apparently don't understand the problems, can't identify a useful solution, and substitute genocidal fantasies in their place. That doesn't bode well for you.
On this we strongly agree; would that it were not so. I think we've caused more humans living on this planet to suffer in real terms through our actions.
You are so desperately wrong.
Communism kill 100,000,000 people.
The Gruesome Consequences of a Political Idea
In his introduction, Stephane Courtois himself a former communist, breaks with the postwar taboo on comparing the Gulag with the Holocaust. He notes that the communist body count of more than 100 million exceeds that of the Nazis. He compares the "class genocide" of communism with the "race genocide" of Nazism and states that both were "crimes against humanity."
So controversial was this comparison that two of Mr. Courtois's editor-collaborators--Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin--later distanced themselves from what he wrote. And predictably, the French left lashed itself into a frenzy, denouncing the book's contributors for traducing the noble communist fight against fascism.
Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?
Q&A: Greek debt crisis
There is no credible evidence for this.
Other than the fact that Iranian back militias we repeatedly found with new Iranian arms, and Quds force officers were arrested in Iraq? Not to mention that Iraqi militia took refuge in Iran?
Iran cooperated closely with the US occupation in Iraq and with the current Shia-led government.
Iran also tried hard to subvert the Iraqi government through bribes, threats, violence, and other means.
Iran was involved in the training of the new Iraqi Army and police and was involved in equipping them.
Iran had very little to do with training the Iraqi Army and police, let alone equipping them. That has almost entirely been the work of the US, NATO, and other Coalition members, which doesn't include Iran. Iran has been active in commercial development, however.