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.

 

Israel 'admits' using white phosphorus munitions

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Like I said - the headline is from the original article, as per the rules of this forum.

This thread is not about the headline - if you have a problem with the headline write to the times, and tell them they were wrong to put the word admit in quotation marks.

Now please stop attempting to derail the thread with pedantic comments - which is your usual MO.



[edit on 22/1/2009 by budski]




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
"The Israeli military came close to acknowledging for the first time yesterday its use of white phosphorus munitions during the war in Gaza, but continued to insist that it did not breach international law."

^This is the headline in the article. Your headline says Israel "admits" to using white phosphorous munitions. You then go on to incorrectly assert that it's against the Geneva conventions. You seem to be unwilling or unable to see the distinction here, or that the Geneva conventions doesn't prohibit attacking military targets in civilian areas. What the conventions DO say is that you can't directly target civilians. You also fail to mention that the Geneva conventions prohibit using civilians as shields, and that doing so is a war crime, but that's an inconvenient truth.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I've covered this already - got a problem, hit the alert button.

Your next point has also been covered in this thread - read back, if you're not too lazy, because I'm not doing it for you.

Now stop trolling and trying to derail just because you don't like the subject.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I've covered this already - got a problem, hit the alert button.

Your next point has also been covered in this thread - read back, if you're not too lazy, because I'm not doing it for you.

Now stop trolling and trying to derail just because you don't like the subject.



I've read your posts, and you've yet to counter what I or others have said.
Additionally, you've yet to address these parts of Article 51 and 52-

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military of advantage.


Again for a little refresher-

It's legal to conduct military operations in civilian areas if the target is combatants.

It's illegal to directly target civilians.

It's illegal to use civilians as shields.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I didn't say that I had answered this, merely that it had been answered.

Like I said, try reading the thread, instead of trying to get others to do it for you.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
[more



I've used WP myself to clear bunkers. In tight quarters, where ingress and egress is limited, it is especially effective. Throw a WP grenade in, and what's not lighted up, and on fire, is asphyxiated.

You see, it burns the oxygen in the enclosed bunker. The effect is most advantageous when combined with a bit of propane. Let a bit of propane spread, as it seeks the lowest levels, and after you've given it a minute, the WP lights it up, you get a whoof at the points of ingress/egress, and you move on to the next one.

If you had any experience at all in combat, you wouldn't make half the BS claims you do, nor some of the mistaken assumptions.

Even in combat, we had two types. Those that did, and those who were always a bit late "being there" or those who found a reason to be "covering" another sector.

And by the way. I've never even seen a copy of this "Janes." I've heard of it, and I understand that a lot of researchers use it for reference material.

I didn't need research. I just used what we had at hand.

And if it wasn't at hand, we'd pull the tanks off of fork lifts, and make do.

Anything to rack up our kill ratio. And I never found a book useful in doing that, as I was never going to beat the SOB over the head with a book.


Mod Edit - removed insult


2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


Terms and Conditions




[edit on 22-1-2009 by elevatedone]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Sulfuric acid is not a chemical? Okay then.

"If particles of white phosphorus land on the body, they burn through clothing and stick to the skin, scorching through layer after layer of tissue until their supply of oxygen is cut off.

Even when it is not burning, the chemical effects of phosphorus can be absorbed deeper into the body causing multiple organ failure."


news.bbc.co.uk...

I hope the BBC is good enough for you, as mike said earlier.

Look, naysaying someone's points in an argument and then calling them stupid doesn't make you look bright. Chemical weapons are chemical weapons. As an above poster mentioned, if white phosphorous is being said to be used for screening purposes, they are lying. Red phosphorous does the same job and is NOT a chemical irritant. It is a terroristic weapon when used in the vicinity of civilians - period. And no amount of your insult to my intelligence is going to change this point.

Oh yeah, I forgot that I had intended to stop debating psychopaths.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by dooper
 


Sulfuric acid is not a chemical? Okay then.

"If particles of white phosphorus land on the body, they burn through clothing and stick to the skin, scorching through layer after layer of tissue until their supply of oxygen is cut off.

Even when it is not burning, the chemical effects of phosphorus can be absorbed deeper into the body causing multiple organ failure."


news.bbc.co.uk...

I hope the BBC is good enough for you, as mike said earlier.

Look, naysaying someone's points in an argument and then calling them stupid doesn't make you look bright. Chemical weapons are chemical weapons. As an above poster mentioned, if white phosphorous is being said to be used for screening purposes, they are lying. Red phosphorous does the same job and is NOT a chemical irritant. It is a terroristic weapon when used in the vicinity of civilians - period. And no amount of your insult to my intelligence is going to change this point.

Oh yeah, I forgot that I had intended to stop debating psychopaths.


White Phosphorous is not listed as a chemical weapon under any conventions. There are prohibitions to using it in directly targetting civilians or in using it for its toxic effects. Not liking something doesn't make it illegal.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


"7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. "

While this may be stated in law, what you fail to realize is that the only option these civilians have is to run away. They have tried. They were shot at.

Therefore, the CIVILIANS aren't shielding anyone. The combatants are exploiting them.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


"Conventions" mean exactly squat in regards to the weapons effects. As has been shown, it is a chemical weapon.


Oh, and by the way, the US classifies the use of White Phosphorous as a chemical agent. That is what they used against Saddam Hussein in justification of the claim of him having "Weapons of Mass Destruction."
Look it up.



[edit on 22-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
"According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.

"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it."

www.independent.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


"7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. "

While this may be stated in law, what you fail to realize is that the only option these civilians have is to run away. They have tried. They were shot at.

Therefore, the CIVILIANS aren't shielding anyone. The combatants are exploiting them.




So you're admitting that Israel is acting within the guidelines, and Hamas is not, by pointing these things out.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I really think you may have seen Rambo a few too many times.

Like I said, I know a lot of REAL soldiers, and none of them glorify slaughter in the way you attempt to.

In fact the only people who do this are the Walter Mitty types.

As for your assertion that WP does not act as a gas, this is complete nonsense:
This article gives the lie to your statement.

Not to mention this:

Effects on humans

White phosphorus can cause injuries and death in three ways: by burning deep into tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke, and by being ingested. Extensive exposure by burning and ingestion is fatal.

By burning
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multiple organ failure.[38] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed. In some cases, burns are limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed. According to GlobalSecurity.org, quoted by The Guardian, "White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries"[39] .

By inhalation of smoke
Burning WP produces a hot, dense white smoke. Most forms of smoke are not hazardous in the kinds of concentrations produced by a battlefield smoke shell. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) does have the potential to cause illness or even death.

WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur. However, no recorded casualties from the effects of WP smoke alone have occurred in combat operations and to date there are no confirmed deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smoke.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m³, the same as fuel oil fumes. By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m³ [40].

By oral ingestion
The accepted lethal dose when white phosphorus is ingested orally is 1 mg per kg of body weight, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death.[41] It may also cause liver, heart or kidney damage.[38] There are reports of individuals with a history of oral ingestion who have Arms control status and military regulations

source

So, yet again you have been proved wrong, and this only reinforces my belief that you have absolutely no military experience.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Read my two above posts.

3rd line

5th line



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
"According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.

"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it."

www.independent.co.uk...





There are guidelines on how WP can be used, as I've already mentioned. It can be used for screening, and incendiary effects against combatants. It's not supposed to be used against civilians or for its toxic effects. If you use it for the latter things I just mentioned, then that's prohibited. If not, then it is authorized.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 

This is a very difficult principle to embrace, and usually the basics of this principle are found in basic chemistry, assuming any education beyond elementary school.

All explosives are chemical based.

No one is slinging containers of sulphuric acid on civilians. You'll note that the shells we've seen bursting, are bursting high above the target impact area.

WP has a very short life in the presence of oxygen. It's not a persistent agent by any stretch of the imagination.

And yes, I know what happens when you get WP on you. If it can get oxygen, it continues to oxidate.

So?

A bullet - is fired through a chemical reaction.

So, since last night when I went to bed, did everyone, every nation world-wide agree to no more chemical weapons?

No more bullets? No more RPG's, mines, no more explosives, no more truck fuel, no more bombs of any kind, no more jet fuel? On and on, and on?

Are we now all reduced to primitive weapons, so that no chemicals are involved?

Red phosphorous has its uses, napalm has its uses, HE has its uses, cluster munitions has its uses, and of course, WP has its uses.

You tell me that you would sacrifice lives on your side, rather than use something that you personally feel is somehow unfair?

Is that what you're saying?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The gas produced when WP oxidizes is also quite deadly and damaging.

Used in such dense urban areas as Gaza, it has a similar effect on the lungs and mucous membranes, ducts and glands as chlorine gas, even though it is of a different chemical composition

The Israelis are effectively Gassing(!) the Palestinians with a weapon that caused your lungs to melt and unable to absorb and transmit oxygen. It causes inflammation of the mucus membranes and is a general irritant even in low amounts. It kills babies and old people, who are more susceptible to it's cardiovascular effects.

This purpose for the Use of WP appears to have been overlooked by many on this site.

In Vietnam WP grenades were used to gas the enemy in their tunnels. Many veterans on ATS can attest to this, even those who served in Afghanistan.

*Just imagine what it would be like to breath in a lungful of the 'smoke screen' that is being used to gas the Palestinians. It would burn, and you're breathing becomes forced and shallow. You feel like if you stop trying consciously to breath that you won't be able to, that your lungs won't respond.

That is just what one lungful of 'smokescreen' will do...



It is nowhere close to Chlorine Gas.


The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m³, the same as fuel oil fumes.

en.wikipedia.org...(weapon)

PHOSPHORUS, WHITE Acute 0.02 mg/m3

CHLORINE Acute 0.07 ppm
Int. 0.002 ppm
Chr. 0.00005 ppm

Note: PPM stands for parts per million

Here's some others for reference.

KEROSENE Int. 0.01 mg/m3

SULFUR MUSTARD Acute 0.0007 mg/m3
Int. 0.00002 mg/m3

Source: Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry
www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

Kerosene fumes and WP fumes are fairly close in levels of toxicity.

WP isn't a chemical agent.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
You are running the argument in circles.
As I've JUST POINTED OUT, the use of it in areas with civilians only applies if the CIVILIANS ARE SHIELDING THE COMBATANTS...
SINCE the civilians tried to leave the area to be turned back by the Egyptians, the use of WP is ILLEGAL.

Once again, it is also a chemical agent. Which, according to US logic, is quite illegal.
According anyone's logic really, since it is a chemical agent being used to gas people under the guise of a smokescreen.

Once again, IF IT WERE JUST A SMOKESCREEN, THEY WOULD USE RED PHOSPHOROUS.

Or better yet, smoke grenades, which contain no phosphorous at all.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Read my two above posts.

3rd line

5th line



I did. Read what the Conventions say though, as those are what's important- not personal feelings about certain weapons.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


You are misrepresenting that article. Either that, or the article is misleading.

Fuel oil fumes don't asphixiate and cause organ failure. Read my above posts and links.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join