News US forces use of Chemical weapons in Fallujah

[TheStatutoryApe]

What Saddam did was out of greed and hatred.

:cringe:
You should know better than to try that one Evo. We all know what sort of response it will likely get.

 

[Evo]

:cringe:
You should know better than to try that one Evo. We all know what sort of response it will likely get.

Right, he was a saint. My bad.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Right, he was a saint. My bad.

No, the whole war is based on greed and hatred remember?

 

[Skyhunter]

In the end we have all agreed that the collateral damage seen due to the use of WP is unacceptable.
The only difference is that some of us believe it was done on purpose and some of us believe it is possible that it may have been done intentionally but have yet to see evidence that convinces us of it.

I don't believe our military wanted to harm civilians. However the liberal use of WP was intentional. If I were in the command I may have done exactly as they did. If you read the AAR of the fight for Fallujah, it was very effective, and probably saved the lives of many of our soldiers. Fortunately I am not in the military, so I have the luxury of abhorring what was done.

I just feel that the more people that become conscious of the reality of the Iraq invasion the sooner we will get out of there. What was done in Fallujah was tragic, what is going on in Iraq is criminal, we are there based on lies. Fallujah did not have to happen. I lay the blame for what happened there at the feet of Bush and his administration.

 

[Art]

I did see that which is why I also made sure to look this bit up and site it...

Okay so by your own admission you did read the piece on your link saying WP can be and is used as an incendiary and so you wrote this knowing it to be wrong and misleading?

Originally Posted by TheStatutoryApe
I don't think I have ever seen something like that used as a weapon except maybe a flare gun in a movie.

Why do that?

The question here is the manner in which it is being used. The problem is that the evidence of the effects of what was used can easily be seen as the natural collateral damage of WP being used extensively for smoke screens and flares.

Per the links already posted; shell WP is normally used as an incendiary; per the US gov'ts own website they fired shell WP - End of story.

Burster-type white phosphorus. White phosphorus projectiles are available for 105-mm and 155-mm howitzers. They are bursting-tube type projectiles that can be fired with point-detonating (PD) or MTSQ fuzes. The projectile has an incendiary-producing effect and is ballistically similar to the HE projectile. Normally, shell WP is employed for its incendiary effect

 

[Anttech]

No, the whole war is based on greed and hatred remember?

:cringe:
You should know better than to try that one Evo. We all know what sort of response it will likely get.

Is this not a bit Ad Hominem?
Art is presenting a very good arguement, which I aggree with, can you not try and counter his argument rather than appeal to emmotions?
Remember this is a scientific forum

 

[russ_watters]

What Saddam did was out of greed and hatred.

You forgot "on purpose". Saddam intentionally killed civilians.

Are you guys suggesting that the US intentionally used WP as a weapon against civilians?

 

[Art]

You forgot "on purpose". Saddam intentionally killed civilians.
Are you guys suggesting that the US intentionally used WP as a weapon against civilians?

Absolutely. They wouldn't allow ANY males of fighting age to leave. Those that tried to swim away were killed by snipers those that tried to cross the bridges were bombed and those who tried to sit it out were hit by just about everything in the US arsenal including shell WP.

It's a little like if you and I were having a gunfight but I'm not sure what you look like so I drive down your street in a tank, machine gunning every house I pass after first blocking the road to stop anyone leaving, would you consider the death of your neighbours to be accidental. I think not.

If that's not intentional murder what is?

ps They razed the Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the centre of the city to the ground and also took over the hospital on the edge of town because they were concerned about the news of the casualities inflaming the rest of Iraq and established sniper positions on the roof and fired on an ambulance which tried to leave which are yet more breachs of the Geneva conventions. But what's new?
According to the August 2002 UN report, the use of DU munitions breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention, the Convention against Torture, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980, and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

Seems it's about time for bombing, sanctions, invasion and regime change in the US to bring her in line with the UN. Oh but I forgot, that only applies to small 3rd world countries with lots of oil.

Saddam could have learned a lot from these guys.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/41F051A7-D85C-4151-B118-B4A9511A573D.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3988433.stm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah.htm
http://esterrepublic.com/Archives/djamail9.html
http://www.sundayherald.com/32522

60% of those killed in Fallujah are reported to have been children, women or elderly. Many of whom were killed in their own homes as these pics show
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28

So to reiterate my earlier point Yes I am absolutely certain the US thugs who entered Fallujah deliberately killed civilians and those who fired ordinance in from the outside didn't give a **** who they killed. Hey per the earlier link you are so fond of quoting even the battalion doctor lobbed in a few shells for fun.

 

[Burnsys]

The question here is the manner in which it is being used. The problem is that the evidence of the effects of what was used can easily be seen as the natural collateral damage of WP being used extensively for smoke screens and flares.
The footage shows that WP was being used for illumination purposes. Admittedly I have not seen all of the footage as I already mentioned but I did not see it being fired directly at any targets or into buildings as claimed nor have I seen anyone else provide evidence that such happened only protests that it wasn't logical to use it for illumination purposes even though that is clearly what is being shown in the footage cited

Well. please try to explain this, you have aknowledge that they used WP for illumination acording to the part of the video you saw... then what is it being used for here in the part you didn't see.? look at the picture, are they using it to illuminate?

 

[edward]

In a responce to a post about a jillion pages back inferring that there was a possible lack of night vison equipment in Iraq. A helment mounted night vision monocular device is standard issue in Iraq. You will notice in the video link that every soldier is wearing one.

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2682073

Another reason so much WP was used was because we thought that insergents had acquired night vision equipment. When a lot of fire was coming out of an area or building at night the area was socked in with multiple rounds of WP. For that matter, it was done in the daylight also.

AGAIN: The important factor to remember here is that innocent non combatants far outnumbered the actual number of insergents.

We can never defeat terrorists using errorist tactics.

 

[Evo]

Skyhunter, the person that responded to your post in the chemical forum was incorrect. Here is how White phosphorus actually burns. It burns CLOTHING.

http://www.brooksidepress.org/Produ...med/Manuals/NATOEWS/ch03/03ChemicalBurns.html

"Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal, which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury."

 

[Art]

Skyhunter, the person that responded to your post in the chemical forum was incorrect. Here is how White phosphorus actually burns. It burns CLOTHING.
http://www.brooksidepress.org/Produ...med/Manuals/NATOEWS/ch03/03ChemicalBurns.html
"Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal, which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury."

The autoignition temperature of WP is actually about 30°C in humid air and slightly higher in dry air. If dispersed as a cloud by shell delivery it is inhaled or contacts the skin where it then reacts with water molecules to produce phosphoric acid which burns flesh but not clothing. Which actually proves the point of how and why the WP was delivered. Air burst WP for illumination comes with a charge to ignite the WP so if the victims had been killed by that falling then the clothes would have been burned but as the pictures show they were not.

The other alternative of course is the US used an illegal blister agent such as mustard gas but I doubt you are suggesting that.

 

[Evo]

If dispersed as a cloud by shell delivery it is inhaled or contacts the skin where it then reacts with water molecules to produce phosphoric acid which burns flesh but not clothing. Which actually proves the point of how and why the WP was delivered. Air burst WP for illumination comes with a charge to ignite the WP so if the victims had been killed by that falling then the clothes would have been burned but as the pictures show they were not.

Please link to the article that states the above. I've read through a number of medical sites and none agree with what you posted.

From the link I posted above, if it's a cloud - "Combustion of white phosphorus results in the formation of phosphorous pentoxide, a severe pulmonary irritant. The ignition of phosphorus in a closed space may result in the development of concentrations of phosphorous pentoxide sufficient to cause acute inflammatory changes in the tracheobronchial tree. The effects of this gas can be minimized by placing a moist cloth over the nose and mouth to inactivate the gas and prevent endobronchial irritation. Hypocalcemia and hyperphosphatemia have been described as effects of white phosphorus injury and have been associated with electrocardiographic changes and sudden deaths. Hypocalcemia associated with cardiac arrhythmia should be corrected by the administration of calcium."

It would be impossible to receive severe burns to the body without burning the clothing, unless someone has developed intelligent WP that somehow mananges to only strike the skin while avoiding clothing "If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin. Remove quickly all clothing affected by phosphorus to prevent phosphorus burning through to skin."[/color]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm

 

[Art]

Please link to the article that states the above. I've read through a number of medical sites and none agree with what you posted.
From the link I posted above - "Combustion of white phosphorus results in the formation of phosphorous pentoxide, a severe pulmonary irritant. The ignition of phosphorus in a closed space may result in the development of concentrations of phosphorous pentoxide sufficient to cause acute inflammatory changes in the tracheobronchial tree. The effects of this gas can be minimized by placing a moist cloth over the nose and mouth to inactivate the gas and prevent endobronchial irritation. Hypocalcemia and hyperphosphatemia have been described as effects of white phosphorus injury and have been associated with electrocardiographic changes and sudden deaths. Hypocalcemia associated with cardiac arrhythmia should be corrected by the administration of calcium."

Here you go. In this link it actually states 35 C.

Ignition temperature : Ignition temperature or ignition point is the temperature at which the fire starts. Below the ignition temperature, even if a combustible substance is present along with oxygen, the fire will not start. Therefore a substance has to be heated to its ignition temperature before it starts burning. For example, the ignition temperature of white phosphorus is 35°C

http://home.att.net/~cat6a/fuels-VIII.htm Can I take it from the doubt you express that you actually do think the US used a blister agent?

 

[Art]

As none of the substantive issues I have raised are being rebutted in a factual and meaningful way unless and until they are I will no longer be responding to posts which simply snipe around the edges or worse are simply fatuous remarks. For an example of what I mean see post #121.

Per Evo's earlier mail let's try to keep the quality of this debate at the standard you would expect on a science forum.

 

[loseyourname]

You know, I find myself wanting to get sucked into this. First, I want to say to Burnsys that it looks, from his photos, like the WP is being used as an obfuscation cloud - which is one of the intended purposes of it stated in one of Evo's links to government sites. I also want to ask what concentration of phosphoric acid is actually enough to start dissolving human tissue. You can drink pure coca cola syrup and it isn't goint to hurt you; even if you inhale it, it will drown you and not dissolve your lungs.

On the other hand, we seem to be hung up on the wrong issue. One side, by alleging illegal conduct on the part of the US, is attempting to make too strong of a case. It's like charging someone guily of manslaughter with murder one - he just ends up back on the street after being acquitted. Chances are, the US forces really were just using this to create a cloud, or possibly to illuminate, or for some other purpose that is legal. Then the other side gets caught up in defending the probably legality of the action and we both end up ignoring the more important issue.

I think that if we can all step back a bit and forget about trying to win these arguments, for which neither side can prevent nothing more than circumstantial and largely biased evidence, and agree that both clouding and illumination can be achieved with agents that have no potential for burning the skin off of people. Whether or not these actions are technically illegal, they probably should be. Why on Earth do we need to use dangerous chemical agents that can horribly disfigure and kill people for any purpose?

 

[Evo]

Here you go. In this link it actually states 35 C. http://home.att.net/~cat6a/fuels-VIII.htm

No I wasn't questioning the combustion temperature, I was questioning the claim you made

If dispersed as a cloud by shell delivery it is inhaled or contacts the skin where it then reacts with water molecules to produce phosphoric acid which burns flesh but not clothing. Which actually proves the point of how and why the WP was delivered. Air burst WP for illumination comes with a charge to ignite the WP so if the victims had been killed by that falling then the clothes would have been burned but as the pictures show they were not.

Where are you reading this?

Can I take it from the doubt you express that you actually do think the US used a blister agent?

No, I am not qualified to determine what the circumstances were that caused death from looking at a picture. That would be foolish.

 

[Evo]

Why on Earth do we need to use dangerous chemical agents that can horribly disfigure and kill people for any purpose?

Good point. I wonder what the other optionms are that would be considered safe and how well they work.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I did see that which is why I also made sure to look this bit up and site it...

Okay so by your own admission you did read the piece on your link saying WP can be and is used as an incendiary and so you wrote this knowing it to be wrong and misleading?

I don't think I have ever seen something like that used as a weapon except maybe a flare gun in a movie.

Why do that?

You really like to twist people's words around and quote out of context don't you?
First of all yes I read the part that you mentioned. Did you read what I quoted which states that MK77s are supposed to be the only incendiary that is in active inventory?
And I did not write anything to be wrong and misleading, you quoted me out of context. What I did say was "Really what do you call something that you shoot up into the sky which ignites, makes lots of light, then floats to the ground? I don't think I have ever seen something like that used as a weapon except maybe a flare gun in a movie." The main point being that the manner I saw it used in the video is consistent with it being used for illumination purposes. I did not see any instances where the WP was being shot at targets. If you have any sources that will confirm that this is the case please do so. Pics of bodies by the way will not confirm this unless they are3 followed up by forensic reports showing that they had WP shells fired directly at them [edit: we have already seen that smoke from WP is toxic and smoke munitions and flares and things of the sort can throw off bits of WP though this is not necessarily the intention of it's use]. Please show me pics of this occurring or something. I have read that there are claims that shells were fired directly at targets but there was nothing to substantiate the claims included in what I read.

Well. please try to explain this, you have aknowledge that they used WP for illumination acording to the part of the video you saw... then what is it being used for here in the part you didn't see.? look at the picture, are they using it to illuminate?

Looks to me like some sort of flare like device being shot in the air, floating down, and then a lot of smoke. What am I supposed to see there? Is there something there that the shell was shot directly at? Because I don't see it if that is supposed to be the case. If you can find better pics or referance a site which explains what I am supposed to be seeing there that might be better.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think that if we can all step back a bit and forget about trying to win these arguments, for which neither side can prevent nothing more than circumstantial and largely biased evidence, and agree that both clouding and illumination can be achieved with agents that have no potential for burning the skin off of people. Whether or not these actions are technically illegal, they probably should be. Why on Earth do we need to use dangerous chemical agents that can horribly disfigure and kill people for any purpose?

I agree that this is the real issue, and well said. I just don't like watching people being unjustly accused of crimes and I think that the accusation of crimes commited is what this thread has become about even if that was not Skyhunter's intentions.

edit...
And if there were crimes commited I would like to see the evidence if anyone can furnish it. I want to know about these things.

 

[Art]

You really like to twist people's words around and quote out of context don't you?

I'd be grateful if you would please stop with the ad hominem attacks.

I did not twist your words, I quoted them exactly as you wrote them. Nor did I quote them out of context.

And if there were crimes commited I would like to see the evidence if anyone can furnish it. I want to know about these things

I suggest you review the posts in this thread they portray a litany of crimes.

 

[Art]

No I wasn't questioning the combustion temperature, I was questioning the claim you made Where are you reading this?

You will find it in one of the links I have already posted. If you doubt it's veracity check with the chemistry forum to see if WP + water produces an exothermic reaction (causing burns) plus phosphoric acid exacerbating same. It does not seem particularly strange to me that dry clothes should remain unaffected though this is totally irrelevant to the main issues which I have already elaborated on in full first for you and then for Russ and still haven't received a response from either of you and so as I stated in a mail a while ago from this point I refuse to get dragged down side alleys irrelevant to the main point.
Edit: Here's some more corroborating information

Pathophysiology: Agents that cause chemical injuries are classified on the basis of their mechanism of action. Most offending agents produce secondary exothermic reactions, which exacerbate the injury. The chemical classification scheme includes such categories as oxidizing agents, protoplasmic poisons, desiccants, and vesicants.
Oxidizing agents can denature tissue proteins and often cause cell damage via cytotoxic effects. Protoplasmic poisons, such as HF, can form salts with cellular proteins. Chemical agents classified as desiccants dehydrate cells generally via an exothermic reaction. Vesicants cause physiologic reactions that cause the release of tissue amines.
In addition, acids with a pH lower than 2 cause coagulative necrosis upon contact with the skin. On the other hand, alkali agents with a pH higher than 11.5 cause liquefactive necrosis, allowing deeper penetration of the chemical. However, chemical classification is not an easy task because chemical agents can often be classified into more than 1 category.

No, I am not qualified to determine what the circumstances were that caused death from looking at a picture. That would be foolish.

Well at least you agree they are dead and I'm sure we can agree that something nasty caused those injuries that killed them so that just leaves whether we can reach agreement that people who inflict that kind of anguish and death on innocent civilians deserves to rot in hell.

 

[Anttech]

Well at least you agree they are dead and I'm sure we can agree that something nasty caused those injuries that killed them so that just leaves whether we can reach agreement that people who inflict that kind of anguish and death on innocent civilians deserves to rot in hell.

Why on Earth do we need to use dangerous chemical agents that can horribly disfigure and kill people for any purpose?

This is the point...And yes they deserve to rot in hell. WHOEVER and WHATEVER political preference they have..

 

[Anttech]

I agree that this is the real issue, and well said. I just don't like watching people being unjustly accused of crimes and I think that the accusation of crimes commited is what this thread has become about even if that was not Skyhunter's intentions.

So who comitted the crimes? Or do you not think there was any crime yet aggree with LYN that "someone" used "dangerous chemical agents that can horribly disfigure and kill people for any purpose?"
If you do aggree with this statement then, forgeting what chemicals were used, its semantics anyway, who did this?

 

[Art]

So who comitted the crimes? Or do you not think there was any crime yet aggree with LYN that "someone" used "dangerous chemical agents that can horribly disfigure and kill people for any purpose?"
If you do aggree with this statement then, forgeting what chemicals were used, its semantics anyway, who did this?

Here's an extract of a good article I found which goes to the crux of the matter and responds well to the semantics being raised on this forum,

First, I think it should be a stated goal of United States policy to not melt the skin off of children.

As a natural corollary to this goal, I think the United States should avoid dropping munitions on civilian neighborhoods which, as a side effect, melt the skin off of children. You can call them "chemical weapons" if you must, or far more preferably by the more proper name of "incendiaries". The munitions may or may not precisely melt the skin off of children by setting them on fire; they do melt the skin off of children, however, through robust oxidation of said skin on said children, which is indeed colloquially known as "burning". But let's try to avoid, for now, the debate over the scientific phenomenon of exactly how the skin is melted, burned, or caramelized off of the aforementioned children. I feel quite confident that others have put more thought into the matter of how to melt the skin off of children than I have, and will trust their judgment on the matter.

Now, I know that we may be melting the skin off of children in order to give them freedom, or to prevent Saddam Hussein from possibly melting the skins off of those children at some future date. These are good and noble things to bring children, especially the ones who have not been killed by melting their skin.

I know, as well, that we do not drop "chemical weapons" on Iraq. We may, in the course of fighting insurgents in civilian neighborhoods, drop "incendiaries" or other airborne weaponry which may melt the skins off of children as an accidental side effect of illuminating their neighborhoods or melting the skins off their neighbors. In that this still can be classified as melting the skins off of children, I feel comfortable in stating that the United States should not condone the practice. (This may mean, when fighting in civilian neighborhoods, we take nuanced steps to avoid melting the skin off of children, such as not dropping munitions that melt the skin off of children.)

And I know it is true, there is some confusion over whether the United States was a signatory to the Do Not Melt The Skin Off Of Children part of the Geneva conventions, and whether or not that means we are permitted to melt the skin off of children, or merely are silent on the whole issue of melting the skin off of children.

But all that aside, there are very good reasons, even in a time of war, not to melt the skin off of children.

First, because the insurgency will inevitably be hardened by tales of American forces melting the skin off of children.

Second, because the civilian population will harbor considerable resentment towards Americans for melting the skin off of their children.

Third, BECAUSE IT ****ING MELTS THE SKIN OFF OF CHILDREN.

And, unless Saddam Hussein had a brigade or two consisting of six year olds, we can presume that children, like perhaps nine tenths or more of their immediate families, are civilians.

These are, admittedly, nuanced points. "But Hunter", I can hear many Americans say, "isn't it a natural byproduct of a war of preemption, er, I mean liberation, to melt the skin off of children?"

Why yes, yes it is. Melting the skin off of children is an inevitable part of urban warfare, which is one of the reasons that most military planners and foreign policy leaders prefer to avoid putting themselves in positions where melting the skin off of children comes into play. George Herbert Walker Bush, when contemplating whether or not to engage in the urban warfare that would, in all likelihood, melt the skin off of children by exposing United States forces to a situation where city defenders would be interspersed with those said civilians, choose the course of not putting his forces in a position where melting the skin off of children would prove necessary.

In any event, street fighting in neighborhoods where there are, indeed, children -- as is evidenced by their skin, lying over there -- may or may not be a wise military decision. But it is certainly true that the whole child-melting decision, pro or con, should be treated with some gravity, and perhaps methods of combat which do not melt the skin off of children should be considered.

Because melting the skin off of children, as it turns out, is a very good way to turn the opinion of the American population against a war in general:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/9/174518/797

Warning: I have copied a sizable piece of the text as the site referenced contains a graphic picture to illustrate the point which many may find upsetting.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So who comitted the crimes? Or do you not think there was any crime yet aggree with LYN that "someone" used "dangerous chemical agents that can horribly disfigure and kill people for any purpose?"
If you do aggree with this statement then, forgeting what chemicals were used, its semantics anyway, who did this?

As LYN stated there is a difference between Manslaughter and Murder One. That is to say there is a difference between intentionally killing someone and killing them due to neglegence.
There are two very different pictures being painted here. One where the soldiers were trying to flush out enemy combatents and the side effects of the methods being used wound up killing innocent civilains, which all of us have stated is an unacceptable outcome. Then you have the picture of "thugs" ransacking the city, targeting anything and everything that moves, and burning them to death.

[edit]I[/e] agree that something wrong was done and something ought to be done about it. I have never disagreed with this. I have only disagreed with the charge that civilians were intentionally targeted and that white phos was used as a weapon directed at targets. If these claims can be substantiated I would like to see it. It would definitely change my view of these events. So far though I have only seen claims and no evidence.

 

[Anttech]

There are two very different pictures being painted here. One where the soldiers were trying to flush out enemy combatents and the side effects of the methods being used wound up killing innocent civilains, which all of us have stated is an unacceptable outcome. Then you have the picture of "thugs" ransacking the city, targeting anything and everything that moves, and burning them to death.

Sorry I see only one picture here.. Innocent civilians being turned into chared malformed dead people...

[opinion]I find it hard to fathom that the "greatest militay on earth" can not know the "side effects" of using "whatever" they used, considering that even a shampoo is tested on its side effects in our modern society[/opinion]

 

[Anttech]

Art nice link, although I laughed, I shouldn't have.. because this whole thing is ****ing despicable, and since we should "do to those as we want done to us" Imagine that was one of (y)our children!

 

[Art]

As LYN stated there is a difference between Manslaughter and Murder One. That is to say there is a difference between intentionally killing someone and killing them due to neglegence.

Even if one were to accept the military are that stupid both manslaughter and murder 1 are both crimes. The people responsible for these crimes should be brought to book.

There are two very different pictures being painted here. One where the soldiers were trying to flush out enemy combatents and the side effects of the methods being used wound up killing innocent civilains, which all of us have stated is an unacceptable outcome. Then you have the picture of "thugs" ransacking the city, targeting anything and everything that moves, and burning them to death.

As I said many posts ago in a response to Evo I'd be quite happy to see the US commanders try to argue that they were simply stupid and not malicious in a court of law and let the judges decide.

[edit]I[/e] agree that something wrong was done and something ought to be done about it. I have never disagreed with this. I have only disagreed with the charge that civilians were intentionally targeted and that white phos was used as a weapon directed at targets. If these claims can be substantiated I would like to see it. It would definitely change my view of these events. So far though I have only seen claims and no evidence.

When you have the battalion doctor casually dropping a few WP or HE shells into a city for a bit of a thrill then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the approach to tackling insurgents.

 

[Evo]

You will find it in one of the links I have already posted. If you doubt it's veracity check with the chemistry forum to see if WP + water produces an exothermic reaction (causing burns) plus phosphoric acid exacerbating same.

You must have missed the post that the person that posted an answer in the chem forum was wrong and has been notified that he was wrong. So you are referring to incorrect information.