Talk:Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 14/2/2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Asserting that WP is a chemical weapon is not NPOV... the documentary asserts as such, so we should have that information in the article, but stating that WP is a chemical weapon is asserting a *specific* POV. Ronabop 04:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
> Munitions containing white phosphorous burn on contact with oxygen, water and organic material > and will incinerate a human being without damaging clothing, buildings or equipment.
This is of course utter bullshit. WP is stored under water and cannot burn without oxygen. Most organic materials do not provide oxygen (except some rare exceptions, like peroxides). WP is pretty toxic, so people might also die through that route, but the usual 'damage mechanism' is the intense heat from fire. Many of the dead bodies in that movie show signs of advanced decomposition, which is to be expected after under such climatic conditions, NOT direct effects of WP. I am very much anti-war too and think that using WP is inhumane and a war crime. But that cannot justify the semi-truths and omissions presented in that news report.
Judging from the above post and the text in the page, I think the "criticism" section has been weaselized.
Contents |
[edit] Section criticism
Section "criticism" strongly need some sources.--Pokipsy76 12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"In addition, modern chemical weapons do not kill by destroying the body but by interfering with the nervous system, so people killed by chemical weapons would show no visible damage at all." —I'm pretty confident this can be deleted. Just because some chemical weapons effect the nervous system does not mean ALL chemical weapons effect the nervous system. There is such a thing called a "chemical burn." I'm sure that qualifies. The dispute of wether WP is classified as a "chemical weapon" or not is debatable. --Osxadvocate 13:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Chemical weapons of whatever variety, whether neuro-toxin based, as in nerve agents, or much more simple, all have physical symptoms and thus cause visible damage, as physical observation of the victim will tell you. The classification of whether WP is a Chemical Weapon or not depends on its use. If used with the intention to kill someone through a chemical process, then yes it is a Chemical Weapon. International protocols guiding use of such weapons use similiar definitions, but with the focus on vicinity of personel to weapon deployment.--Shakujo 04:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non neutral phrase
This phrase:
- Due to the to the fact that he was the basis of the majority of information to back-up the Massacre conspiracy in this movie[citation needed], critics dismiss this movie as Propaganda[citation needed].
- has not a NPOV
- attempt to inpetrpet the thoungt of critics
- completely lack sources
- use the weasel word "critics"
therefore I suggest to deleted it.--Pokipsy76 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Seabhcán 13:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Seconded Izzy1985 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP
http://www.ccwtreaty.com/protocol3.html indicates that WP is banned for use on civilians or civilian targets unless it is used as "illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems"
-
- Also states: " "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage." So it is useable against enemy combatants. Izzy1985 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, and as such all the rules regarding chemical weapons are in fact, just non-legally binding guidelines.--Shakujo 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] AfD versus Protection
This article has notability, but because of continued vandalism is up for deletion. I think that given the controversy of the topic to merely delete could be confused with a POV act of censorship. I think some kind of protection would be more in order.--Shakujo 04:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
