We shouldn't use sugarcoated terms like "white phosphorus"

[ecstatic]

That term will completely go over most peoples' heads.

The US is using CHEMICAL WEAPONS and POISONOUS GASES on innocent women and children in Iraq.

Hey, isn't this the same sh!t Saddam Hussein is on trial for?

"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece

[oblivious]

1. I agree.

And I suggest ignoring the posters trying to sugarcoat it. As far as I'm concerned, they're trying to shift the discussion away from the horror and immorality of the weapon to a discussion of semantics. It's an effective strategy, I admit.

[Kolesar]

2. Fire bombs

[Caution]

3. How is calling it by its proper name sugarcoating something?

We should educate people to the effects of it rather than use terms which are vague and scary sounding. This stuff is absolutely awful and it shouldn't ever be used as a weapon but using terms which are meant only to frighten doesn't help, instead it makes us look like hysteriacl fear mongerers just like their use of the word "terror"

[ecstatic]

5. tell that to people who were burned down to the bone

and killed. I see your point, but WP is a horrible, horrible chemical weapon. We have to make sure that everyone realizes that this is just not some cute little substance.

[Dave Reynolds]

4. Or the cute little nickname "Willie Pete".

That one gets me.