Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Clarity and Chemical Weapons

A little while ago, I posted on the irrelevance of semantic fine points regarding the use of white phosphorous rounds in Fallujah. A few commenters took issue with me, assuring me that use of white phosphorous was not the same as using chemical weapons (among other arguments that totally missed the mark) and accusing me of slandering our troops.

Guess who else has called white phosphorous a chemical weapon? None other than our Pentagon, in reporting on Iraqi use of white phosphorous. I'm expecting the "comments" section to be jam-packed with intellectually honest and earnest apologies . . .

4 Comments:

Blogger les said...

[crickets chirping]

11/23/2005 10:52 AM  
Blogger antimedia said...

The Pentagon report is wrong. Whoever wrote it was incorrect in calling WP a chemical weapon. By International law, it is not a chemical weapon.

That is the facts. All else is baloney. (Oh, and in a shocking moment, for me, the NY Times agrees.)

11/24/2005 5:39 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Why am I not convinced, AM? Somehow, using a weapon for its insane ability to chemically burn people seems an awful lot like using a chemical weapon. All else is baloney. I mean, seriously, don't you think so?

11/24/2005 10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me see if I can figure this out. White phosphorus is a chemical. If it was used as a weapon, what would that make it? Hmmm, let me think about that awhile. . . . . .

Oh, that would make it a weapon made from a chemical or, as the common folk might say, a "chemical weapon."

If it walks like a duck and acts like a duck, it is a duck even if international law calls it a chemical weapon.

11/28/2005 6:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home