White Phosphorous

[DogOnPorch]

Yep, but if i can have the sheet of plywood I'll take the WP over the HE...

Not much energy in a chunk of WP...agreed.

WP is just one of those weapons people fixate on because it blows up all pretty-like. Sinister...sure...but not nearly as deadly as other weapons.

-----------------------------

It's a Daisy.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Can we at least agree that using white phosphorous against people (military, terrorist, or civilian) is wrong.

Having people burn to death in horrible pain is wrong. Can we agree on that?

Hell no! We work long hours in the lab and on the range to develop the most effective ordnance / munition for each target type. We actually design and control the primary, secondary, and tertiary effects for time, blast, kill radius, penetration, etc.

Do you have any idea what the hot spalling from a kinetic energy round can do? No Willy Pete involved at all...just depleted uranium or tungsten steel.

[KeyStone]

Gosh no! Horrible way to die? Sure...wrong to use it against combatants..no. Inefficient, probably...seeing that WP is not a incendiary weapon

Well, since you don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with such an intensely painful death, that burns the skin off of people - it appears that you really only see this conflict in terms of good and evil - such that no mercy should be shown to the evil people.

So, it's really a moot point.

There really isn't any atrocity that Israel could commit against the Palestinian people that you wouldn't try to justify.

It amazes me that Israeli supporters talk about the stress and anxiety that Israelis experience when they are so quick to dismiss people getting their skin burned off as a necessary act.

[bush_cheney2004]

WP is just one of those weapons people fixate on because it blows up all pretty-like. Sinister...sure...but not nearly as deadly as other weapons.

Right...just like Beavis would say......Fire!

[DogOnPorch]

Well, since you don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with such an intensely painful death, that burns the skin off of people - it appears that you really only see this conflict in terms of good and evil - such that no mercy should be shown to the evil people.

So, it's really a moot point.

There really isn't any atrocity that Israel could commit against the Palestinian people that you wouldn't try to justify.

It amazes me that Israeli supporters talk about the stress and anxiety that Israelis experience when they are so quick to dismiss people getting their skin burned off as a necessary act.

Well...ok then. What weapons would make your "fine to use" list besides katushya rockets?

--------------------------------------

Boom, boom...out go the lights!

---Little Walter

[M.Dancer]

Well, since you don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with such an intensely painful death, that burns the skin off of people - it appears that you really only see this conflict in terms of good and evil - such that no mercy should be shown to the evil people.

So, it's really a moot point.

There really isn't any atrocity that Israel could commit against the Palestinian people that you wouldn't try to justify.

It amazes me that Israeli supporters talk about the stress and anxiety that Israelis experience when they are so quick to dismiss people getting their skin burned off as a necessary act.

What amazes me are people who whine and wring their hands over a legal weapon....then wade in with all kinds of tear jerking bullshit like calling a smokescreen device an atrocity. Please start a new bullshit thread calling the use of bullets as an atrocity or border walls, whatever...as long as it's something the ISraelis have in their arsenal and use to defend themselves should do the trick

[M.Dancer]

Well...ok then. What weapons would make your "fine to use" list besides katushya rockets?

--------------------------------------

Boom, boom...out go the lights!

---Little Walter

Don't forget vests....

[DogOnPorch]

Don't forget vests....

Aye...a truely strange way to fight a war.

----------------------------------

Like my loafers? Former gophers -

It was that or skin my chauffeurs,

But a greyhound fur tuxedo

Would be best...

---C. Montgomery Burns

[dub]

It has been dealt with and I still laugh....

The International Red Cross...has declared that Israel's use of WP not in violation.

So who are you going to believe? The Red Cross or some half wits who neither understand the Geneva Convention or the uses of WP?

HRW says otherwise:

Human Rights Watch believes that the use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas of Gaza violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/10/isra...phosphorus-gaza

the problem with many of the questionable actions by the IDF is that israel is either not allowing or making it very difficult for many of these organizations to go into gaza and do a proper investigation.

you are almost correct about red cross' statement:

"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."

then it's followed with:

However, Herby said evidence is still limited because of the difficulties of gaining access to Gaza

[dub]

Dancer... by your use of Red Cross, it seems like you agree with red cross' statements. are you also willing to accept red cross' other statements about israel in the occupied territories?

for example, this:

Red Cross: Israel breaking int'l law, letting children starve in Gaza

Relief workers said they found four starving children sitting next to their dead mothers and other corpses in a house in a part of Gaza City bombed by Israeli forces, the Red Cross said on Thursday.

"This is a shocking incident," said Pierre Wettach, ICRC chief for Israel and the Palestinian territories.

"The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded. Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestinian Red Crescent to assist the wounded," Wettach said.

The agency said it believed Israel had breached international humanitarian law in the incident.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053877.html

[M.Dancer]

Given the choice between HRW and the Red Cross....One makes a statement that there is no evidence and the other relies on faith....

Never the less, Anti personel shells also make smoke....make WP impossible and you make the other inevitable...tie my hand and I'll kick with my feet.

[DogOnPorch]

Never the less, Anti personel shells also make smoke....make WP impossible and you make the other inevitable...tie my hand and I'll kick with my feet.

A point rarely brought up by those looking to ban various particular weapons...mines...cluster bombs...etc. What new horror will result?

----------------------------------

Good night Mrs. Calabash...wherever you are.

---Jimmy Durante

[segnosaur]

the problem with many of the questionable actions by the IDF is that israel is either not allowing or making it very difficult for many of these organizations to go into gaza and do a proper investigation.

Yes, Israel is limiting access to Gaza. Given the fact that there is a conflict there, perhaps Israel wants to limit the use of 'human shields', as aid workers and/or media might end up being.

Of course, they could rely on the fine reports provided by the Media in Gaza. Except of course...

Reporters Without Borders is concerned about a new system of accreditation that Ismael Haniyeh's government has announced for all telecommunications companies, Internet service providers, broadcast media and news agencies based in the Gaza Strip, which has been controlled by the Islamist party Hamas since June 2007.

(From: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,RSF...7608714,0.html)

So, while you're blaming Israel for cutting off information from the area, perhaps you should similarly consider criticizing Hamas for its anti-free press tactics.

[Rue]

White phosphorous weapons have been used since the 19th century and have been used in all major wars including the Gulf War, in Iraq, by the Russians in Chechnya, etc.

The horrendous thing about these weapons is that we all know if sulphur comes in contact with skin, it will burn down to the bone like acid.

I don't think there is any question it was used in Gaza.

One of the reasons its used is that it can create ground cover and it can mark an area with tracer flumes.

So in close quarters fighting it can enable a conventional soldier on the ground to avoid getting hit by sniper fire and enable them to shoot back more accurately at a position and avoid collateral damage to civilians but yes it also floats in the air and if it comes into contact with civilians it burns them horrendously and if inhaled it causes serious damage to the lungs.

There are of course a lot of accusations now being thrown about that Israel has violated international law using such weapons. I will now respond to the legal issue and in my second memo respond to the moral issue.

The violations the Israeli Defence Force are now being accused of and were also accused of in Lebanon are as follows:

1-Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977):

"In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects,

the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and

combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct

their operations only against military objectives."

2-Article 8(2)((i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998):

"..Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual

civilians not taking part in hostilities".

3-Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and

Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977):

"The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of

attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among

the civilian population are prohibited.”

Inrterestingly as was the case with Hezbollah in Lebanon and now Hamas in Gaza, those who accuse Israel of the above violations remain totally silent as to the actions of Hamas and before them Hezbollah.

I would suggest if a legal determination is made that Israel did violate any of the 3 grounds above, it would not be considered in isolation of the actions of Hamas and in fact it would be legall impossible to find Israel guilty of any of the above unless Hamas was found guilty of the exact same violations.

For Israel to defend itself, it is allowed to argue that it was not deliberately targetting civilians but only responding to Hamas who placed the civilians in harms way. It could also be argued as horrendous as the sulphur missiles are, they save more lives then they cause harm to.

What most people do not understand is the use of white sulphur in itself is not illegal. Using it or ANY OTHER weapon to deliberately target civilians is illegal. Many posters assume simply using it is illegal.

Now in regards to other international legal violations that Hamas appears to have violated but Israel has not I would bring to your attention the following 6:

Article 8(2)((xxiii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) "war crimes" defined to include:

"Utilizing the presence of a civilian ... to render certain points, areas or military forces

immune from military operations".

Article 23(f) of the 1907 Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land :

"…especially forbidden", "To make improper use of a flag of truce, … as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention."

Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949)

"… the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground … may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments … ".

Article 38 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the

Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977):

"(1) It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red

crescent or … of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions …".

(2) It is prohibited to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as

authorized by that Organization."

Article 77(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of

1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977):

"The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have

not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular,

they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces…"

Article 8(2)((xxvi) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) (ground for war crime):

"conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed

forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities".

In conclusion I think it is important when discussing this issue we understand the law is complex, and those who simply assume they can look at the use of these weapons without context to what Hamas was doing do not understand how the law will be applied and its why while Human Rights Watch or Amnesty can make statements they feel the use of such missiles are an international crime, that has no meaning in law, none whatsoever because Human Rights Watch and Amnesty feel the law should prohibit the use of such weapons under any circumstance but the law does not and so their comments reflect their partisan beliefs and not what the law says.

You may have strong beliefs as to what you think of the use of such missiles but your emotions and feelings are not what the law necessarily will follow to determine any findings of illegality.

If it can be shown an IDF soldier deliberately fired at a civilian with the sole intent to kill them and for no other reason, then yes that would be an international crime and for that matter a court martial crime within the IDF that would subject the soldier to life imprisonment for murder.

[Rue]

In regards to the moral issues of using white sulphur weapons I think it obvious none of us

wish civilians to be exposed to such weapons.

The horrendous slow burns are gut wrenching and dehumanize people

to the utmost extent possible without killing them.

As such I personally believe these weapons should be permanently

outlawed.

That said I would arguye Hamas is morally culpable for placing its civilians in harm's way

and shooting weapons from close proximity to their civilians forcing the

IDF to consider using them.

I would also argue a moral argument can be made that the use of these weapons is justified because they

may in fact prevent more deaths then those they harm.

The problem we can all agree burning people is horrible.

But then so are terrorists who use their civilians as cannon fodder to gain

world sympathy through exposing them to death and such burnings.

So it is my personal opinion that the IDF should not have used these weapons and Hamas is

dispicable for placing civilians in the line of fire.

I would also state anyone who is trying to exploit this tragedy to engage in partisan

mud slinging only compounds the insanity of this issue.

Surely the focus of our attention should be on disarming terrorsists and finding

ways to create peace.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Rue

[DogOnPorch]

While phosphorus (P) and sulphur (S) share some properties, they are different elements with atomic numbers of 15 and 16 respectfully.

----------------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

[Oleg Bach]

Fire from the sky on the prison camp - thank God for international disapproval.

[dub]

I would also argue a moral argument can be made that the use of these weapons is justified because they

may in fact prevent more deaths then those they harm.

you have lost all credibility with that statement.

[KeyStone]

What amazes me are people who whine and wring their hands over a legal weapon....then wade in with all kinds of tear jerking bullshit like calling a smokescreen device an atrocity. Please start a new bullshit thread calling the use of bullets as an atrocity or border walls, whatever...as long as it's something the ISraelis have in their arsenal and use to defend themselves should do the trick

Dancer, nobody has an issue with them using it as a smokescreen device, providing they take care to avoid harming people directly with the phosphorous. As someone else pointed out, most militaries use it for one reason or another.

But, since none of the Israeli apologists have even had the courage or decency that to admit that using it to burn off the skin of people is wrong, there isn't really much point in attempting to demonstrate how they are using it, since in the eyes of the apologists Israel can do no wrong.

Hell, Israel could kill every Palestinian there, and the apologists would still find ways to defend them.

[M.Dancer]

But, since none of the Israeli apologists have even had the courage or decency that to admit that using it to burn off the skin of people is wrong, there isn't really much point in attempting to demonstrate how they are using it, since in the eyes of the apologists Israel can do no wrong.

Have you thought perhaps that maybe some people know they don't use it to burn people's skin off and it's ioly those who know nothing about military tactics and weapons who think that's what it's purpose is? As a weapon it blows...if you wanted to burn peoples skin off their plenty of better choices, napalm comes to mind.

Anyway, if you want to call me am Israeli apologist, can I call you a terrorist enabler?

[KeyStone]

Have you thought perhaps that maybe some people know they don't use it to burn people's skin off and it's ioly those who know nothing about military tactics and weapons who think that's what it's purpose is? As a weapon it blows...if you wanted to burn peoples skin off their plenty of better choices, napalm comes to mind.

Anyway, if you want to call me am Israeli apologist, can I call you a terrorist enabler?

You can call me a Palestinian apologist if you like. You really should look up the word apologist before you get your panties in a knot.

If you want to call me a terrorist enabler, then can I call you an infanticide advocate?

[M.Dancer]

....can I call you an infanticide advocate?

Only in abortion threads...