This is a preposterous defense of white phosphorous (an allotrope of the element that spontaneously ignites in air). Of course it's a chemical weapon; it just burns you to death before the toxicity can kick in. What a shameful series of tweets. https://twitter.com/luke_j_obrien/status/986024841370394624 …
-
-
"An 8-year-old Afghan girl, Razia, was injured when a WP shell ripped through her home in 2009. When she reached the operating room, white powder covered her skin, the oxygen mask on her face started to melt, and flames appeared when doctors attempted to scrape away dead tissue."
Show this thread -
That's from a Human Rights Watch report on this lovely substance, which you and I just paid for on tax day. https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/08/white-phosphorous-new-napalm …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
My point is the CWC is an arbitrary line across a broad class of substances that are not significantly different in mode of action or toxicity. Contrast the situation with biological or nuclear weapons, where there really is a bright line. Please also hold off on the insults
- Show replies
-
-
-
WP is noted as forbidden by the CWC for killing properties, but is perfectly legitimate for smokescreen use http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm …
-
"So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.