[quote=mjdonnelly]And they are all implying it is a chemical agent, comparable to the ones used by Saddam during his reign.
I say again, you might be able to differentiate between these weapons and those used by Saddam, but I bet few Muslims will bother.
Italian television aired a documentary yesterday alleging that the United States had used white phosphorus shells ''in a massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians in the November 2004 offensive in the Iraqi town of Fallujah.
The US military has denied that it used white phosphorus against civilians. It confirmed, however, that US forces had dropped MK 77 firebombs, which a documentary on Italian state-run broadcaster RAI compared to napalm, against military targets in Iraq in March and April 2003.
The documentary showed images of bodies recovered after a November 2004 offensive by US troops on Fallujah, which it said proved the use of white phosphorus against men, women, and children who were burned to the bone.
San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC’s Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used “as an incendiary weapon”.
a defence website, says: “Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful… These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears… it could burn right down to the bone.”
A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.
But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford’s department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians. He told PM: “It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people.”
In context- I cited Al-Jazeera as an opportunity to observe how the Muslim world was protraying this thing because perception is very important wouldn’t you agree? Perhaps you need to read that post again?
In any case I disagree with your appraisal of Al-Jazeera. I know that it disagrees with your point of view, but it has been widely praised by the international journalistic community and provides a window for us onto the Arab world. One that we would do well to look through occasionally. What have you to fear???