It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
White Phosphorus and Red Phosphorus burn to produce a hygroscopic smoke containing phosphoric acids. Red phosphorus (RP) is not nearly as reactive as white phosphorus. It reacts slowly with atmospheric moisture and the smoke does not produce thermal injury, hence the smoke is less toxic.
Originally posted by dooper
.
And this "gas" effect is crap. You're talking about open areas in Gaza, and there is this thing called an atmosphere. It's big, and concentrations of any gas in the great outdoors are quickly dispersed.
Originally posted by budski
Despite the geneva convention stating quite clearly that WP is NOT to be used in civilian area's Israel stands firm in its conviction that the use of WP was according to international law.
The denials from israel when it was first accused of using WP were vociferous to say the least - now it appears that they are back-tracking and have said that the use of this horrible weapon was in line with international law, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Now they are trying to say that it was being used as a smokescreen - when there were no Israeli troops on the ground in the first instances of its use, what were they screening exactly?
The Israeli response is absolute rubbish and the use of WP in civilian area's was a criminal act.
www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
This also ties in quite nicely with this:
IDF officers intending to travel to Europe, whether for business or pleasure, have been advised to contact the Judge Advocate General's Office prior to leaving Israel; and some may be instructed not to leave the country.
The advisory has been issued following Israel's concern that international arrest warrants may be issued against officers who were involved in the Israeli offensive in Gaza, on charges of war crimes.
Jerusalem has reportedly received several reports suggesting international human rights groups are in the process of gathering evidence in the form of photos and testimonials, with the intent of filing suits both with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague and in local European courts.
While the State is likely to be able to thwart such attempts in The Hague, having suits of this nature filed with local European courts quashed is more complex: Many of the European courts have taken it upon themselves to hear cases of alleged war crimes perpetrated in other countries, even if they themselves have no affinity to the case.
Once a European court decides to hear such a case, it is within its right to issue bench warrants for the alleged criminals – in this case top politicians and military personnel – and that is a move the State might find difficult to undo.
source
[edit on 21/1/2009 by budski]
Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
The tag line is the one from the article, as per the rules of the breaking news forum - got a problem? use the alert button.
Also, read the whole thread - that point has been covered, and I have no intention of finding and posting a post because you're too lazy to read.
Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
Please refer to my previous answer and stop trying to derail the thread.
If you have a problem, alert the mods.