Willy Pete alleged to have been used in Falluja

[Abbott]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

After reading his posts, here and elsewhere, and his excellent ROW AARs, I think I'll start paying Bigduke6 to write my papers for college for me. I want to just quote the whole post and put "Great post!" afterwards. But I won't.

LOL,

I wanted to quote it and say "Desk Jockey".

[Drusus]

I think this article does a good job summarizing the WP issue: CS Monitor

So, it seems clear that WP is not a chemical weapon. But that should have been clear from the start, even finnish mortar teams have WP in their arsenal. We bastards...

[Bigduke6]

Guys,

I'm not trying to argue the criticism of the use of WP is valid. My point is, WP is a chemical used as a weapon and lots of people don't make the distinction between "legal" and "illegal". They just see U.S. forces uses a chemical and ask themselves whether the U.S. is morally right by doing so.

Since morality differs from place to place, it's inevitable the place with soldiers involved (U.S.) in the fight is going to be a lot more tolerant in weapons type uses, than some one looking on without a personal stake in the fight.

And if you are in the fight and need or at least want that outsider's help, you're stuck with the problem of dealing with his opinion. That's just the way it is.

I'm not linking this to the use of WP, but I read in the newspapers today the South Koreans just announced they were yanking their contingent of 3,200 men out of Kurd territory, the U.S. State Department was "suprised" at the announcement.

Guess some one failed to convince the S. Korean decision-makers keeping that contingent in-country was a good idea, huh? Too bad, a brigade of tough soldiers in Kurdistan is not going to be so easy to replace.

P.S. to Abbott,

I played your State Farm 79 scenario and it was terrific. Thanks for the work; you did an amazing job creating credible Russian terrain. Down on view 1 I could really convince myself it was winter around RL Smolensk or Vladimir or something. And I've been there. Almost the only thing missing was the green picket fences and a couple of village drunks.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by juan_gigante:

After reading his posts, here and elsewhere, and his excellent ROW AARs, I think I'll start paying Bigduke6 to write my papers for college for me. I want to just quote the whole post and put "Great post!" afterwards. But I won't.

LOL,

I wanted to quote it and say "Desk Jockey". </font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I'm not trying to argue the criticism of the use of WP is valid. My point is, WP is a chemical used as a weapon and lots of people don't make the distinction between "legal" and "illegal". They just see U.S. forces uses a chemical and ask themselves whether the U.S. is morally right by doing so.

Tayloring your actions to suit people who are irrational, too ignorant or too biased to make sound judgement is a losing strategy from the start. If that is what is required to win a war the mistake is not in how the war is being prosecuted, but getting into such a war in the first place.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by juan_gigante:

After reading his posts, here and elsewhere, and his excellent ROW AARs, I think I'll start paying Bigduke6 to write my papers for college for me. I want to just quote the whole post and put "Great post!" afterwards. But I won't.

LOL,

I wanted to quote it and say "Desk Jockey". </font>

[M Hofbauer]

politicians and journalists are about the dumbest people around.

together, they make a great combination.

I remember a couple of years ago there was an outrage, the Splitterbomben scandal, when a politician of the red-green government responsible for defense/military issues suddenly discovered that the German Air Force uses Mk 82 bombs... yes we are talking about the regular Mk 82 HE iron bombs, just about as plain vanilla as they can get... and that these bombs when exploding are produce fragmentation... these shrapnel bombs are to be outlawed since they are such an immensely inhumane weapon!

the issue was not pursued further, apparently someone took them to the side and introduced them to the mundane nature of the MK82 series iron bombs...

similar here with WP.

the point is not whether or not the US uses WP or that it is certainly not a chemical weapon in an NBC sense.

the point is that again the US kept denying using it at all, denying it until it was proven that (of course!) it was being used.

but I dont think it hurt the US credibility or image abroad. because it is already rock bottom in the media here.

but now good bye,

M.H.

[edit for spelling]

[ November 18, 2005, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[MikeyD]

In this debate WP isn't just WP. As the old often-repeated saying goes "war is politics by other means". With the whole world watching, perception 'is' reality. Governments don't wage war simply to wage war. To take an extreme example, with its massive stockpile of nukes and chemicals the U.S. could handily win every battle it begins within the first seven minutes. But the carnage would be so great as to nullify any political advantage that initiating the war was meant to achieve. Instead of "The end justifies the means" perhaps the phrase should be "The end justifies a touch of judicious self-restraint". History has shown we could win every battle but lose the war if by heavy-handed practices we fail to achieve the war's political aims. In order to effectively prosecute a war you must always take into account the political reason for entring into the war in the first place.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Is this a credible news source?...

Tom, I just came across this article on the Italian Film

Has the Coalition Used Chemical Weapons in Iraq?

By Scott Burgess

The frenzy of the week in the blogosphere concerns the use of White Phosphorus as an anti-personnel weapon at Fallujah. After initial State Department denials that did little for the American PR cause, the Pentagon has now made a matter-of-fact statement that it was indeed so used, but only against combatants, and therefore legally.

The blogospheric firestorm -- just now hitting the MSM in a significant way -- was sparked by an Italian broadcast film, purporting to be a documentary, in which the claims were first widely aired. The film consisted of interviews with participants limited to a Communist reporter, a researcher for a pacifist human rights group, two veterans turned anti-war activists, the director of a "human rights centre" based in Fallujah, and a former British back-bench MP also active in the anti-war movement. It also included supposedly damning photos and videos -- some purporting to show the horrific effects of white phosphorus bombardment upon those innocent civilians who ignored the American warnings to evacuate, issued well prior to the assault.

Unfortunately for those promoting the film's claims, its assertions are rather easily debunked. The primary evidence given for the accusation that WP was used on the bodies shown lies in the fact that the burned corpses are clad in intact clothing. However, John Pike, weapons expert at the internationally respected globalsecurity.org, has categorically stated that burns caused by white phosphorus are not consistent with bodies in undamaged clothing.

Similarly with the film's contention that WP is a "chemical weapon". It is in fact an incendiary weapon, commonly used since at least World War II. Its use as an antipersonnel weapon against combatants is not barred by any treaty -- a fact confirmed by Peter Kaiser, a spokesman for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the group that enforces the UN chemical weapons convention...

[...]

...Mr. Monbiot then tries to implicate smoke produced by burning WP -- smoke which is frequently used to screen friendly troops, and, in the words of globalsecurity.org -- a source he's just used in the previous paragraph! -- has caused "no recorded deaths", and "no casualties in combat operations"

Thus ends the argument that WP constitutes (implicitly illegal) chemical weaponry. After discussing the (lamentable) US backtracking on the issue, Monbiot then addresses the use of the mark 77 firebomb, which, like that of WP, is not prohibited against military targets.

The groundwork now laid, Mr. Monbiot finally arrives at the aim of his piece -- indeed, the Holy Grail of a certain kind of antiwar activist: to establish a moral equivalence between the US and Saddam Hussein:

[...]

The meme equating the legal use of white phosphorus munitions with the gassing of thousands of defenseless civilians is breathtaking, but predictable -- and will no doubt continue its relentless march through the blogosphere, thanks in large part to Mr. Monbiot. What's more surprising is the readiness with which he makes the easily refuted claim that WP used against combatants is a "chemical weapon", with the implication that such use is illegal.

This is not to say that Mr. Monbiot is of no worth as a journalist -- far from it. Judging by his accurate assessment of the value of the Italian documentary, the Guardian should be using him as a film critic, leaving serious commentary to those with more rhetorical skill.

Tech Central Station

Might be old news now, and I confess the thread is too long to wade through, so this might already be posted, let me know if that is so and I'll edit the post.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Guys,

I'm not trying to argue the criticism of the use of WP is valid. My point is, WP is a chemical used as a weapon and lots of people don't make the distinction between "legal" and "illegal". They just see U.S. forces uses a chemical and ask themselves whether the U.S. is morally right by doing so.

WP is not a chemical weapon in the (if you'll pardon the pun) conventional sense. In fact, it is only a chemical weapon if you label regular HE, Depleted uranium, enhanced blast and bayonets as also being conventional weapons. Actually, DU is closest in nature to WP, being also a pyrophoric solid.

If you're going to complain about something, why not mention the fact than all small arms embed a toxic heavy metal into whatever they hit?

My counter-point is akin to that of Vanir Ausf B. Basically, if people are so bleeding stupid as to call WP a chemical weapon and get het up about it, there is surely nothing you could do or fail to do that wouldn't result in their condemnation. That is not to say that you can cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war, just that if people will take offence at such propaganda, there is very little you can do about it either way.

How the US admin chose to respond is probably open to criticism. Probably the best response would be to say

"Yes we did. And?"

But the initial and subsequent reports seem to be a touch confused about whether they are talking about WP or napalm.

[Bigduke6]

Flame,

But what if the "bleeding stupid" outnumber you, are not "educated" to your point of view, and you need their support?

My opinion, in a situation like that you have to start thinking about the cost/benefit of using something that would irk the morons. Simply doing what you please, on the grounds morons will be irked, is a bad policy. Even morons have opinions, and it is possible to influcence them.

Just never let them know you think they are morons. Because most often, they think they are looking at reality better than you are.

[Tarquelne]

Even morons have opinions, and it is possible to influcence them.

It's easier, because you can get away with more lying. (Unless they're "morons" because of ideological blinders - in which case they just won't believe what you say. You have to get to such people early.)

I think that eventually we'll see governments become very "pro-active" about this sort of thing. In conflicts where the hearts-and-minds stuff is important they'll anticipate problems like the WP-issue (anything "strange" or not well known to the public could be trouble) and see it as an important part of their mission to nip such problems in the bud.

Heck, a 2 hour TV special made within a few weeks of major actions explaining to the public what happened? (Well, what you want them to think happened.) The basic facts will probably get out eventually. You may as well make sure you get to "frame" them first, and justify your actions.

Most "morons" are just ignorant.

[Bigduke6]

Tarq,

Quite right. The danger comes when the policy maker mistakes ignorance with a third party's differing perceptions of reality, and treats third parties like morons. The third party, quite often quite as capable of rational thought as the policy maker, naturally resents that.

The simple example for WP is that the UN 1980s conventional weapons convention where it comes to WP WAS signed by a bunch of Second and Third-World nations, but WAS NOT signed by the U.S. (Or more specifically, the U.S. made clear the UN convention was not going to dictate U.S. tactical weapons use, period.)

So, as far as the U.S. is concerned, they are on rock-solid moral ground using WP. The problem is that since there are other people with other approaches to the issue, who signed up saying WP is evil, simply saying "well if they disagree with us they're anti-American morons" is pretty much a recipe for converting those people into your opponents, if you push them far enough.

Theoretically, U.S. policy makers had a choice when it came to WP in Falluja: use the weapon and accept the potential for conflict with third parties who think WP is too nasty for a war, or don't use the weapon and accept additional infantry casualties. Make a judgement about which evil is less for your long-term war effort.

I am close to positive, however, the decision was not made anything close to that rationally. Almost certainly, U.S. policy makers were far too busy, and quite possibily not imaginative enough, to worry about public opinion fall-out from the use in Falluja of a marginal chemical weapon. Most likely the thinking was: "Well we aren't using high explosives, we're trying to leave the buildings standing, and WP smokes the bad guys out of their holes so we can shoot them fair and square, what could possibly be the problem?"

That approach assumes third parties view U.S. military activies in the region in a positive light, and that third parties generally agree with the U.S. as to what acceptable and unacceptable weapons for the conflict are. So now we see the most powerful and best educated military in the history of the world stunned - once again - to find out others don't agree with them.

That approach is arguably quite as "moronic" as Italians getting in a flap about WP. The U.S. can dictate military and economic terms readily enough throughout the world, but most definately not opinions. It's like that great student song popularized in the Great Escape: Es bleibet dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

All of which leads me to another excellent wrinkle for CMSF, besides V.P. penalties for use of effective but non-PC weapons: Tie U.S. weapons use by type to global morale for the Syrian side. For instance, if Spectre shows up the morale goes down, every one is terrified of Spectre. But if high explosives are used morale goes up, as the infidel invaders have been forced to use weapons that are going to get them in trouble with third party opinion.

I could really get into this game, if there were ways of winning and losing besides simple pixel body counts. Body counts are so 20th century, after all.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

But what if the "bleeding stupid" outnumber you, are not "educated" to your point of view, and you need their support?

Then you are doomed to fail, as has been pointed out previously.

The simple example for WP is that the UN 1980s conventional weapons convention where it comes to WP WAS signed by a bunch of Second and Third-World nations, but WAS NOT signed by the U.S. (Or more specifically, the U.S. made clear the UN convention was not going to dictate U.S. tactical weapons use, period.)

So, as far as the U.S. is concerned, they are on rock-solid moral ground using WP. The problem is that since there are other people with other approaches to the issue, who signed up saying WP is evil, simply saying "well if they disagree with us they're anti-American morons" is pretty much a recipe for converting those people into your opponents, if you push them far enough.

This is false. For the 67th time, the CCW does not prohibit the use of WP. I can't believe this is still being propagated.

[Bigduke6]

Protocol III prohibits the use of burning materials against civilians, and in locations where civilians are likely to be harmed. It applies to weapons that burn intentionally, but does not apply to weapons that set fires as a incidental result of the weapon's use.

So it all comes down to whether WP:

1. Was used against civilians. Problem: How do you define a civilian in Falluja?

2. Was intended to burn humans intentionally? Problem: Does "smoking people out of a building" with a weapon that will burn through their flesh down to the bone count as intentional burning?

3. Is a weapon that burns or not. Problem: If the targets are not afraid of smoke, but are afraid of chemical burns, then is using WP to get them to abandon a building the use of a burning weapon or a smoke/concealment weapon?

The answers to both those questions is unclear. Arguing that the answers to those questions are cut, dried, and undebatable may be a good official position to take, but that is not reality.

Reality is, a weapon designed to make smoke and burn stuff in a nasty and chemical way is a gray area, and if it is used in a built-up area where people live, that is a gray area too. The arguement that civilians were told to get out is also a gray area, because then you get into a discussion as to whether U.S. (i.e. foreign) forces may or may not legitimately order people out of their houses and businesses.

It may be irritating, but ignoring the fact that this issue is legally complex does not change the issue's complexity. Add into that the reality that most people don't care about "legality" in a war, but rather look at the conflict with their own perceptions of right and wrong, and the arguement about WP being a "legal" weapon becomes very sterile very fast. The matter never will go to international court anyway, so why worry about treaties?

The only court in session is public opinion. And like I said, if you can't dictate terms, and need a public behind you, you have to deal with the opinion of that court.

So what does this mean for CMSF? Maybe there is a way to build into the VP system penalties for types and volumes of weapons used. It would be really cool: accomplish your mission and expend no ammunition, max VPs. Accomplish your mission but expend .30 or under, almost max VP. Accomplish your mission and use everything up to grenades, medium VP. Use 75mm - 105mm explosives, less VP. Use greater than 105mm, even less.

Use 120mm or bigger, you better have killed a lot of the enemy or kept a bunch of your people alive, because the VP bite is serious. Call in a laser-guided bomb that might still hit the Chinese embassy, even more of a bite. Call in an Arc Light, you'll lose the scenario, unless the enemy is doing something horrific like killing children in a mosque.

[Sergei]

Bigduke6 is right.

[SSgt Viljuri]

Bigduke6 wrote:

The arguement that civilians were told to get out is also a gray area, because then you get into a discussion as to whether U.S. (i.e. foreign) forces may or may not legitimately order people out of their houses and businesses.

If a car steers at you, against traffic regulations or not, don't you tend to give the road?

Notwithstanding the fact that the oncoming car in question happens to be not insured or not?

Should a clear stupity and indefference be rewarded in a customary internatinal law's praxis?

The whole argument relies on semantic "poppycock", I think.

Especially compared to the lesser-known happenings at Grozny.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Using WP as a weapon is legal. No one can quote a single treaty that says otherwise. Repeating assertions that have been debunked will not make them any less false no matter how many times you repeat them.

If the US loses the war in Iraq after having used WP, they would have lost it anyway had they not.

[Tarquelne]

If the US loses the war in Iraq after having used WP, they would have lost it anyway had they not.

I think that's extremely likely.

But just like Vietnam, in Iraq it's possible to win on the battlefield but lose the war.

As long as our eventual exit-strategy calls for the survival of at least one Iraqi, then popularity counts.

For example: Exchanging an Iraq ruled by a misanthropic (to put it mildly) guy who hates the US for with a reactionary (in the worst sense of the word) Iraq that universally hates the US and is closely allied with any other anti-US nation or group it can find doesn't seem like a "win" to me.

But if the "popularity contest" part of the conflict goes badly enough, that's exactly what we'll get.

The thing about PR issues is that their eventual impact is can be so out of proportion to their actual importance.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Protocol III prohibits the use of burning materials against civilians,

Protocol III is quite clear on its definition of "incendiary weapons", and provides a list of exclusions.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

and in locations where civilians are likely to be harmed. It applies to weapons that burn intentionally,

Weapons do not (with the possible of some putative guidance system written using BDI agents) have intentions.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

[snips]

3. Is a weapon that burns or not. Problem: If the targets are not afraid of smoke, but are afraid of chemical burns,

WP burns are not "chemical burns" as the term is usually understood (as e.g. from corrosive hazardous chemicals such as drain-cleaner), but burns caused by the usual agency of high temperature.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The answers to both those questions is unclear. Arguing that the answers to those questions are cut, dried, and undebatable may be a good official position to take, but that is not reality.

I really don't think any of these questions are unclear. Some people may be ignorant of how to find the answers and given to muddle-headed thinking, but that is quite a different thing.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Reality is, a weapon designed to make smoke and burn stuff in a nasty and chemical way is a gray area,

I don't think it is any objective or even careful observation of "reality" that enables you classify ways of burning into "nasty" and, presumably, "nice".

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

It may be irritating, but ignoring the fact that this issue is legally complex does not change the issue's complexity.

On the contrary, this issue is legally quite straightforward, and pretending it is otherwise does not make it so.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The matter never will go to international court anyway, so why worry about treaties?

Easy -- because the administration of justice does not depend exclusively, or even mainly, on any international court. British and US personnel serving in Iraq have been investigated and prosecuted for illegal acts by their own military justice systems, including at least one prosecution for charges that turned out to have been trumped-up.

If there had really been any breach of the laws of armed combat, I imagine that it would be open to the people whining about WP to commence proceedings. The fact they haven't suggests to me that aren't really serious.

Then again, there's always the possibility that those protesting are agents-provocateurs placed by a Machiavellian White House. Is it mere coincidence that, in a week Rummy makes a speech accusing opponents of the Iraq venture of dishonesty, the RAI team should manufacture such an obviously baseless and mendacious story? ISTM that the evident silliness of these stories can only serve to undermine the genuine arguments that can be put forward against the war.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

So what does this mean for CMSF? Maybe there is a way to build into the VP system penalties for types and volumes of weapons used. It would be really cool: accomplish your mission and expend no ammunition, max VPs. Accomplish your mission but expend .30 or under, almost max VP. Accomplish your mission and use everything up to grenades, medium VP. Use 75mm - 105mm explosives, less VP. Use greater than 105mm, even less.

Use 120mm or bigger, you better have killed a lot of the enemy or kept a bunch of your people alive, because the VP bite is serious. Call in a laser-guided bomb that might still hit the Chinese embassy, even more of a bite. Call in an Arc Light, you'll lose the scenario, unless the enemy is doing something horrific like killing children in a mosque.

But this is a rational scale of penalties based on what was objectively used or not used during the game. Surely, the system should cater for perception, rather than reality; you can napalm kiddies 'til you're blue in the face, just don't let the cameras see you at it. And the "public horror" index should be pretty well independent of the actual destructiveness of the weapons. I don't believe, for example, that public opinion makes any distinction at all between 105mm and 155mm HE, or 5.56mm and 12.7mm bullets. 500lb bombs are fine; tiny little bombs are "bomblets", and therefore Satanic.

All the best,

John.

[ng cavscout]

The point, to me at least, seems to be that if the western media, and many citizens of the west refuse to see anything the U.S. does in Iraq in a positive light, I don't know what difference it makes what the U.S. says to the press. Do you really think that a media that focuses exclusively on every mis-step by the U.S. and coalition forces, but glosses over atrocities perpetrated by Anti Iraqi Forces on a regular basis really cares whether WP is banned or not? AIF bombers consistently target Iraqi civilians, and there seems to be no moral outrage in the western media. Decapitations of civilians become commonplace, and where is the anguish in the editorial pages?

Whether or not WP is actually a banned weapon seems to be a debatable point. But I don't think it would matter what the lawyers decided. Many people seem to have already made up their minds that anything the U.S. does is bad.

Myself, I would hate to get hit by a WP munition, but I would also hate to be shot with a 7.62 round, or have my neck sawed through with a butcher knife while some insurgent video taped it.

What about using CS or other irritant agents as a method of "flushing out" suspected enemy positions? I believe those could be classified as chemical weapons as well.

Fighting this kind of war is a nasty dirty excercise, believe me, I know. I just wish the enemy was held to a standard of decency.

In no way am I condoning the violations of the laws of war by Coalition forces. Soldiers who cross the line should be, and are, believe it or not, punished to the fullest extent of the law. We are fighting, once again IMHO, an enemy that needs to be defeated so we can let the Iraqi's determine their own future. The Iraqi's, not the Americans, not the Jihadists, the Iraqi's. It should be noted that the Insurgents, and I can't believe that some people call them freedom fighters with a straight face, are the ones that try to derail free elections.

I am not trying to be political, but I guess I was. But I don't really think the outrage about WP use is about legal technicalities regarding weapon classification. I think it is sentiment about the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

But then perception is reality in matters such as these.

Of course, I could be wrong, it has been known to happen.

[ng cavscout]

One more thing before I start getting yelled at for being political.

I always found it ironic how as a Police Officer back home, I am allowed to use hollow point bullets in my pistol, which are banned by the Geneval

Convention for military use!

[Battlefront.com]

NG Cavscout,

Agree in general. The problem is one of expectations. The US forces bill themselves as being rational, law abiding, caring, and constructive. Therefore they are judged by their own self presented image. The insurgents present themselves as ruthless, unconcerned, criminal, racist, religious zealots who don't give a rat's ass about anything other than how quickly they can gain total control. Therefore, they are judged by this standard.

The problem is that the insurgents are already so outside the norm of acceptable "civilized" behavior that just about nothing that they do is alarming to anybody. They've been written off as animals. Therefore, they can't fall from grace. The exact opposite is true for the Coallition forces.

The expectations for their behavior is exceptionally high (too high if you ask me), and therefore it is extremely easy for a few Soldiers to make the wrong call and have it blown out of proportion, while the insurgents are (by comparison) allowed to get away with murder.

This is just the way the world works. It isn't fair, nor is it good for Iraq or its people. It just is what it is.

Steve

P.S. It is good to remember that the media always favors the negative over the positive. Been that way since the dawn of time. Only the medium has changed.

[Rick]

Steve, love your message here in general. Although, I'd like to also mention is another reason that people such as myself hold America to a higher standard is that it's our country. We want are nation to live by a high moral code, especially when such issues are touted as reason for starting the war in the first place: "they have bad weapons we got to go kick their butts" then we go and use weapons of that sort.

[akd]

Originally posted by Rick:

Steve, love your message here in general. Although, I'd like to also mention is another reason that people such as myself hold America to a higher standard is that it's our country. We want are nation to live by a high moral code, especially when such issues are touted as reason for starting the war in the first place: "they have bad weapons we got to go kick their butts" then we go and use weapons of that sort.

Oh dear god, not you too. Leaving moral equivelance aside, how can you compare white phosphorous to a nerve agent or mustard gas on a chemical or physical basis alone. Tell me why white phosphorous is more similar to Sarin than, say, Pentolite. I want to hear the scientific explanation, not the emotional one. And please don't pull a Diane Rehm "it does, in fact, burn the skin." HE burns the skin, right before tearing through it and scattering it in little bits.