BF2S Forums Saddam's Half-Brother decapitated during execution

Decapitation or not, successful execution.

The Iraqi people tried, convicted and executed Saddam - NOT the United States. If there is any public outcry concerning the executions it should be directed toward them not the US.

A great day for freedom. Breath it in folks - that's the sweet taste of just and righteous freedom touching another beleaguered nation.

Last edited by CyrusTheVirus (2007-01-16 11:41:41)

CyrusTheVirus wrote:

A great day for freedom. Breath it in folks - that's the sweet taste of just and righteous freedom touching another beleaguered nation.

Cool! You must be talking about NI!

blisteringsilence wrote:

The WP in a WP Grenade is 98% pure and anhydrous, so 1% humidity would be enought to start burning. Once ignition is attained, the extreme heat of the reaction causes hydrogen from the WP to bond with oxygen molecues from the original water molecules, creating a self-sustaining reaction until the WP is all reacted. In practice, there is nowhere on the planet dry enough to avoid this.

This is why you store WP under mineral oil and handle it in all N2 environments. Just the oxygen from the air is theoretically enough to start the reaction if even a few molecules of water are present.

You can start calling me "sir" and "my lordship" any time now.

We know the reaction will start when it hits the air, it wouldn't be much use to light up a battlefield otherwise.  Anyway, I was testing your claim of having a chemistry degree (hence part of your post I quoted) by expecting a well sourced answer which I can verify.  Still waiting. 

And I'm still not convinced that enough will burn before it hits the skin in every possible scenario to believe that you can say the caustic properties will not be one of the major sources of damage.  Using a chemical which is caustic against the skin is one of the criteria for being a substance being considered a chemical weapon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

Peter Kaiser, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons wrote:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

bob_6012 wrote:

Yes people used to have their heads popped off during hangings because there was too much weight around their ankles so that instead of breaking the neck it broke it clean off. It's just the sign of an amateur execution.

One thing those guys are not amateurs at is hanging people.

UON wrote:

Aside from anything, do you people truly believe that you can claim the moral upper hand when your argument is that chemically burning your enemies alive despite the risk to innocent civilians is okay with one chemical and not with another (i.e. mustard gas).

As has been already posted, using WP on enemies is banned by the convention. So is using anti-aircraft guns on troops, due to huge mess it makes. So if you can prove the US used WP in Fallujah they would be liable to be charged in an international court, if the US military actually gave a crap about international courts...

iNeedUrFace4Soup wrote:

How PC do you have to be to think that people insulting him at his execution was inhumane? It was an execution, he is dead! The reason it pissed people off is because it is fuel for civil war.

Oh no, they hurt his feelings right before they snapped his neck. Lets investigate. Get a tear sample, it's evidence.

*Sigh*

It was imperative for the West to demonstrate the execution of Saddam was dignified.  Why? We the West the prevailers of Justice, Freedom and Truth must explicitly provide tangible evidence we are above the barbarity as so readily exemplified in the ME.

This of course never happened, and as such your much coveted hearts and minds program takes another dive into the sewers of Iraq, which is already seeping with American blood.

look beyond the fact that Saddam was a tyrant and was getting his just deserts.  He was a broken 69 year old Sunni Muslim with nothing to lose.  Give a condemned man some dignity, differentiate yourself from the same barbaric methods he utilised.  Demonstrate to the one billion Sunni Muslims you were able to provide him with something that he refused to offer to his people.

UON wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

The WP in a WP Grenade is 98% pure and anhydrous, so 1% humidity would be enought to start burning. Once ignition is attained, the extreme heat of the reaction causes hydrogen from the WP to bond with oxygen molecues from the original water molecules, creating a self-sustaining reaction until the WP is all reacted. In practice, there is nowhere on the planet dry enough to avoid this.

This is why you store WP under mineral oil and handle it in all N2 environments. Just the oxygen from the air is theoretically enough to start the reaction if even a few molecules of water are present.

You can start calling me "sir" and "my lordship" any time now.

We know the reaction will start when it hits the air, it wouldn't be much use to light up a battlefield otherwise.  Anyway, I was testing your claim of having a chemistry degree (hence part of your post I quoted) by expecting a well sourced answer which I can verify.  Still waiting. 

And I'm still not convinced that enough will burn before it hits the skin in every possible scenario to believe that you can say the caustic properties will not be one of the major sources of damage.  Using a chemical which is caustic against the skin is one of the criteria for being a substance being considered a chemical weapon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

Peter Kaiser, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons wrote:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

1. I ain't your teacher. If you're too dumb to figure out that I know what the hell I'm talking about, tough shit. Go here and educate yourself. I don't have time for that shit.

2. If the critera you are using for a chemical weapon is caustic action on the skin, you're in real trouble buddy. Caustic mean irritative. Not all things that irritate the skin are chemical weapons. Teargas irritates the skin. Now, does the skin get a chemical burn from WP? Theoretically, yes. However, this is the real world, and here in it, we see that you are going to have a thermal burn from the heat of the reaction as opposed to a chemical burn.

There is no comaprison that can be drawn between a weaponized chemical gas and WP. The gasses Saddam used on his people (mustard, VX, etc) are just that, gasses. The only thing controlling them is the wind. A WP grenade explodes where you throw it and has a blast radius of what, 5 meters max? WP causes burns. The LD50 of VX gas is 10 mg. That's one one-hundreth of a gram. You ingest that much VX, it blocks the action of acetylcholinesterase, thus resulting in sustained contractions of all the muscles in the body. Sustained contraction of the diaphragm muscle causes death by asphyxiation.

I'd say the two are on whole different ballfields.

Last edited by blisteringsilence (2007-01-16 12:50:19)

blisteringsilence wrote:

I'd say the two are on whole different ballfields.

Look, I've been down this road several times before in other threads, and it still basically comes down to a matter of interpretation.  This argument is like saying that tobacco isn't a drug but cocaine is.  One is illegal and more harmful not just to the user but to those around them, and one is legal and a bit less harmful (but still with some collateral damage).  It's a chemical which is used as a weapon, but it doesn't come under the current definition of an illegal chemical weapon.

So, it's currently legal, but that may change in the future.  Saddam used mustard gas in the 80's right, but it wasn't illegal until 1993. 

UON wrote:

People may as well stop using the mustard gassing to try and demonstrate the evil of Saddam's regime because if hearsay and a few photographs is enough to prove someone is guilty, then George Bush should be the one hanging for using chemical weapons on civilians at Fallujah.

Now, I may well have made that statement based on what my (and many others) opinion on what chemical weapons are, but even if it's currently legal, it still remains that using it as a definitive statement of the evil of Saddam's regime and to justify his hanging is comparable to using it for a justification for hanging Bush.  Which it is.  If Bush ever were hanged for it, then I think he deserves a fair trial with the chance to defend himself before it becomes the gospel truth.  And if he were hanged for ordering someone else before facing the charges and the charges were dropped, then I believe this is wrong and he should have a chance to defend himself.  If he were denied that chance and the charges were dropped, then it should be not be quoted as an example of how evil he was.  And if he killed himself before it got to trial, then a balanced public enquiry should appoint guilt if it is deserved.

But dropping the charges is wrong and denying him a fair trial (which he didn't even get anyway) is a disservice to his victims.  That is the main point I am making about the three hangings.

usmarine2007 wrote:

Waaahhh...they hanged him.  Waaaahhh they shot him.  Waaaahhh they broke his nail.  Waaaaahhh he has no cable TV in his cell.  God some of you people drive me nuts.  He is innocent...free saddam mandela....

Waaahh.... people hate America....waaaahhhhh but double standards are easier to live by......waaaahhhhh and the UN always votes against us.... waaaaaahhhh human rights only apply to Americans why won't they understaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UON wrote:

So, it's currently legal, but that may change in the future.  Saddam used mustard gas in the 80's right, but it wasn't illegal until 1993.

so i guess that made it ok to gas thousands of innocent civilians.