Emma, I am sorry.
To be honest, I only skim read your posts looking for the salient points.
Honestly Emma, most people do not read long posts at all, but I know I criticised you before for selective editing and you are trying your hardest to be fair and balanced.

In my defence, you have never challenged Don or Jim for calling it a chemical weapon, and they have only attacked me for refusing to. You did seem to be supporting their position.

I have never denied that smoke munitions can cause injury, and said its use here was deplorable and possibly illegal.
Don pointed out that a direct hit, or a few feet away, will cause serious injuries.
Conventional munitions are effective over a much greater range.
WP smoke would not be deployed to cause casualties because it would cause vastly less casualties than conventional weapons.