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: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


In that case, the entire UN is corrupt in allowing the US to send in weapons inspectors into Iraq to LOOK FOR WHITE PHOSPHOROUS. See my above link and subsequent references.




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


The use of WP as any kind of agent - and screening is no excuse, it was being used before troops entered gaza - in one of the most densely populated area's in the world, knowing full well the effect it would have on the civilian population is a war crime.

As was the shelling of a school, AFTER isreali soldiers had told people to shelter there, as well as the shelling of a UN compound which was trying to provide food and medical aid to injured civilians.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
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.


You're using revisionist interpretations. You're giving Hamas a pass on using civilians as shields. You're ignoring what the Conventions say on WP, and cherry picking the parts that you like. There is absolutely no convention that says all civilians must evacuate the battlefield before any hostilities can commence, and that if they don't the battle is illegal.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

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


In that case, the entire UN is corrupt in allowing the US to send in weapons inspectors into Iraq to LOOK FOR WHITE PHOSPHOROUS. See my above link and subsequent references.


I'd agree with you on this point. The UN is a corrupt and mostly useless organization.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


As already posted and referenced to numerous times in this thread, the US and Israel have signed off on the ban of use of chemical weapons on even ENEMY combatants, let alone civilians in a position of collateral damage.
No matter how you try to reword the obvious, the US classified WP as a chemical weapon when Saddam Hussein used them. You are trying to have cake and eat it. (Seems as if I uttered these words like 3 pages ago)

I'm tired of going in circles here.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Yes, you would go that far, but not far enough to agree that WP is an illegal weapon?

You are arguing for no apparent reason, in that case.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


The use of WP as any kind of agent - and screening is no excuse, it was being used before troops entered gaza - in one of the most densely populated area's in the world, knowing full well the effect it would have on the civilian population is a war crime.

As was the shelling of a school, AFTER isreali soldiers had told people to shelter there, as well as the shelling of a UN compound which was trying to provide food and medical aid to injured civilians.



A- what are your thoughts on Hamas using civilians as human shields?

B- there is no prohibition of attacking military targets in civilian areas.

C-if WP is used against military targets, it is authorized, so long as the intent is not to use its toxic fumes as the means to attack one's foe.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

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


Yes, you would go that far, but not far enough to agree that WP is an illegal weapon?

You are arguing for no apparent reason, in that case.


It's not an illegal weapon. There are certain ways of using it that are illegal.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


No, you MISINTERPRETED WHAT YOU READ. I suppose I could take a page from dooper's book and call you an idiot.

What the law states, quite explicitly, is that if civilians purposefully shield the combatants, they are fair game.
In reality, the civilians have tried to flee. They weren't allowed to.

Re-read it. With some comprehension.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Yes, and those ways are precisely the ones that they are being used as.


Look, I'll put this in simple terms for you guys.
Israel has denied their usage even though it is abundantly clear they DID use them....
Why would you reckon they did that?

I'll tell you why, because they know they were wrong in doing so. And this has been shown to be true.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


Here's the relevant part of the GC, AGAIN, as it seems some posters are too lazy to read the whole thread, excluding yourself:

Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in circumstances.

2. 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.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

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.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

source


BTW, I've dealt with this poster before - his MO is to obfuscate, repeat, derail and repeat some more.
Then when people give up speaking to him because they get tired of repeating themselves he thinks he wins by default.
Now THAT'S real intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

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


No, you MISINTERPRETED WHAT YOU READ. I suppose I could take a page from dooper's book and call you an idiot.

What the law states, quite explicitly, is that if civilians purposefully shield the combatants, they are fair game.
In reality, the civilians have tried to flee. They weren't allowed to.

Re-read it. With some comprehension.



No, what it says is that if a combatant uses civilians as shields(this has nothing to do with the civilians willingness), then that's a war crime. It's also a crime to use Hospitals, Schools, Religious sites, Ambulances,etc... for offensive military purposes, and if you do so, they lose their protected status. Hamas intentionally stages attacks from locations in the midst of civilians, knowing full well that they're putting them at risk of a counterattack. This is definitely a war crime, and if you'd take a break from your Israel bashing long enough to be intellectually honest, rather than being daft, and resorting to insults, you might see this.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

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


Yes, and those ways are precisely the ones that they are being used as.


Look, I'll put this in simple terms for you guys.
Israel has denied their usage even though it is abundantly clear they DID use them....
Why would you reckon they did that?

I'll tell you why, because they know they were wrong in doing so. And this has been shown to be true.



Denied usage, or denied improper usage?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
"
"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. "

Read the above very, very carefully. Especially the part when it tells CIVILIANS not to move in a way that would shield military operations!

In this case, the civilians HAVE NOT MOVED TO HINDER OPERATIONS. In FACT they tried to move out of the country. They were turned away. I had better reading comprehension in the sixth grade.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
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.


They don't asphixiate and cause organ failure? You have worked around JP8, Kerosene and the various fuel using heating devices used in GP mediums?

In an enclosed space WP fumes are slightly more deadly as fumes from Kerosene. It can kill in certain circumstances.

Again I am not defending its usage, I'm just pointing out an error to the other poster. The error being that WP is anywhere close to Chlorine gas.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Medics in Gaza say latest casualties include at least 60 people affected by suspected phosphorus shells fired illegally near civilian areas.

An Israeli army spokeswoman strongly denied the report, saying all its munitions complied with the law.

An Israeli spokesman also denied Human Rights Watch allegations of multiple use of white phosphorus in the bombing.

Phosphorus shells are allowed to make smoke in battlefields. Their use where civilians may be harmed is prohibited.

source

Denied ANY usage.

Now that they have been caught, their fall back position is the same as yours.

How very predictable



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Clearly Israel wasn't bluffing when Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert pledged recently to hit Hamas with an Iron Fist. See
Gaza: Israel prepares 'iron fist' strike at Hamas

This stuff is used at night so that later it can be claimed, under the auspices of 'plausible deniability,' that it was not used as a weapon, but only to 'illuminate' and 'provide ground cover' ...

For an idea of just what this stuff can do to a human being, see the following video, produced by an Italian crew, after WP was used by US forces in Fallujah. It is 27 minutes in length, and make sure there are no kids looking over your shoulder -
White Phosphorus in Fallujah

After viewing this documentary, I am sure most would agree the 'psychological effect' on the enemy would be incredibly effective in terms of demoralizing them. Far more so that the mere 'lumps of charcoal' which napalm would leave in the aftermath of its use ...

To see what the US Center for Disease Control has to say about the human toxicity of WP, see TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR WHITE PHOSPHORUS



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Read budski's last post...
It appears that the phosphorous shells killed 60 civilians. Of course this number is probably inflated slightly. However, I doubt that fueling unleaded at the station is going to kill anyone in open air any time soon.

Simple fact is they are illegal to use in proximity to non-combatants.
Partially for their chemical agent effect.


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



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski


BTW, I've dealt with this poster before - his MO is to obfuscate, repeat, derail and repeat some more.
Then when people give up speaking to him because they get tired of repeating themselves he thinks he wins by default.
Now THAT'S real intellectual dishonesty.


And your MO is tap dancing, and back peddling, rather than answering a question( or countering an assertion.)


4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;


In other words if there is a specific military objective, it doesn't qualify as indiscriminate.




5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated


In other words if the concrete and direct military advantage exceed the collateral damage, it doesn't qualify as indiscriminate.




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.


In other words the presence of civilians DO NOT render areas immune from military operations, nor should a combatant seek to use civilians to shield themselves.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

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


Read budski's last post...
It appears that the phosphorous shells killed 60 civilians. Of course this number is probably inflated slightly. However, I doubt that fueling unleaded at the station is going to kill anyone in open air any time soon.

Simple fact is they are illegal to use in proximity to non-combatants.
Partially for their chemical agent effect.


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


Out of those 60 how many were killed by burns or poisoned by imbedded WP fragments? I'm willing to bet most of them died from burns and imbedded phosphorus.

Fueling at a station won't but inhaling too much exhaust from your car will. Kerosene fumes are even worse than Gasoline fumes. WP is one step above Kerosene, but no where close to real agents like Sulfur Mustard and Chlorine.

Again I'm not defending the use of it. I'm just trying to inform.

[edit on 22/1/09 by MikeboydUS]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join