|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Israel admits using phosphorus bombs (chemical weapons) in Lebanon
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Israel admits using phosphorus bombs (chemical weapons) in Lebanon
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| FatesWebb |
Israel admits using phosphorus bombs in Lebanon
(AFP)
22 October 2006
JERUSALEM - Israel admitted for the first time to using controversial white phosphorus shells against military targets in Southern Lebanon, an Israeli newspaper reported on Sunday.
‘The IDF made use of phosphorus shells during the war against Hezbollah in attacks against military targets in open ground,’ Minister for Government-Parliamentary Relations Yakov Edery told lawmakers last week according to the Haaretz daily.
A spokeswoman for Edery confirmed the report. Edery was simply reading the army’s response to a query posed earlier by another Israeli lawmaker, the spokeswoman, Orly Yechzeken, told AFP.
‘This is not his personal opinion,’ she said. ‘This is what the military told us.’
In his statement to lawmakers, Edery added that the army maintains that phosphorus shells are a legitimate weapon and not forbidden by international law.
‘The IDF used this type of munitions according to the rules of international law,’ Edery reportedly said.
White phosphorus munitions cause severe burns and agonizing deaths. The chemical seeps into the bloodstream and causes respiratory problems and other ailments in victims, which has lead many to demand it be classified as a chemical weapon.
The International Red Cross and other human rights groups have long argued that phosphorus weapons should be banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention.US leaders went on the defensive after reports surfaced last year that American troops in Iraq had used phosphorus in the battle for Fallujah in 2004. |
|
|
| adam |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
Israel admits using phosphorus bombs in Lebanon
(AFP)
22 October 2006
JERUSALEM - Israel admitted for the first time to using controversial white phosphorus shells against military targets in Southern Lebanon, an Israeli newspaper reported on Sunday.
‘The IDF made use of phosphorus shells during the war against Hezbollah in attacks against military targets in open ground,’ Minister for Government-Parliamentary Relations Yakov Edery told lawmakers last week according to the Haaretz daily.
...
|
Shouldn't this be easy to confirm independently? Victims would have verifiable amounts in their bodies. |
|
|
| salafibrigades |
| Israel rocks!!! :rock: |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by adam
Shouldn't this be easy to confirm independently? Victims would have verifiable amounts in their bodies. |
it has been confirmed for a long time, but Israel would not admit it. Now they admit it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUgMQiKhL84 |
|
|
| DREAD |
I knew to expect this response from you and the only way I can answer this is as such:
War is a disgusting- horrible means to an end and should only be used as a last resort-
"Only the dead have seen the end of war."
By nature- war must be devestating, if it is not, than the stomach for it grows. The more we sanitize, the more we are inclined to use extreme violence. The more violent it is, the less we will be inclined to inflict such hurt.
In the case of these people, the Hezbollah are equally to blame as the IDF is. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
| bullshit, this is against international laws, there is no reason for it. |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Israel admits using phosphorus bombs in Lebanon
Same old bullshit from the libs. you cunts dont even know what WP is(white phosphorus) you fucking retards. Every Army, Navy, Air Force etc etc uses it.
Quote: Originally posted by adam
Shouldn't this be easy to confirm independently? Victims would have verifiable amounts in their bodies. |
If you got hit by Willy Pete, chances are you dont have a body to look at. :( |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| I'm shocked to find their using bullets also! |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
Israel admits using phosphorus bombs in Lebanon
Same old bullshit from the libs. you cunts dont even know what WP is(white phosphorus) you fucking retards. Every Army, Navy, Air Force etc etc uses it.
If you got hit by Willy Pete, chances are you dont have a body to look at. :( |
Because we use chemical weapons. Depleted uranium? Hello? What do you think caused the Gulf War Syndrome? Although Im sure you will say it was liberalism. Of course that was a very short war. Those guys have nothing on what the troops there will have to deal with in 5 years. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
Israel admits using phosphorus bombs in Lebanon
Same old bullshit from the libs. you cunts dont even know what WP is(white phosphorus) you fucking retards. Every Army, Navy, Air Force etc etc uses it.
If you got hit by Willy Pete, chances are you dont have a body to look at. :( |
So it is ok, for the usa and israel to break the law???
http://www.eoinmacleod.com/
Status of White Phosphorus in International Law
Iain MacLeod (im273@cam.ac.uk)[1]
© 2006 - this article may not be reproduced or replicated without the prior approval of the author.
1. The controversy surrounding the use of white phosphorus by the American armed forces to 'flush-out' suspected insurgents, coupled with the more recent suspected use of directed incendiary devices against individuals by the Israeli forces in Lebanon, has lead to a renewed interest in the legal status of white phosphorus-based munitions.
2. Continued calls by politicians of various States to condemn the use of white phosphorus as a direct contravention of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC)[2] brings into question as to whether white phosphorus can, and should be, classed as a chemical weapon so as to be subject to the restrictions set-out under the CWC. The lack of analysis, under CWC criteria, into the basis of white phosphorus munitions has been seen by some as the critical legal question in determining its admissibility.[3]
Basis for Designating Chemical Weapons
3. Although white phosphorus is by its very nature a chemical, its applications during warfare do not necessitate an indiscriminate classification as a chemical weapon. To determine whether white phosphorus is prohibited under the terms of the CWC it would have to be shown that not only is white phosphorus a de jure chemical weapon but that its military uses are proscribed by the treaty.
4. The CWC provides a comprehensive outlook on unlawful activities regarding, amongst others, the use of chemical munitions. However, rather than allow those activities not termed illegal under the CWC to be classed as permissible, the treaty at Art. II (9) specifically outlines "purposes not prohibited". Functioning of this article relies on a treaty-based interpretation of "chemical weapons", therefore we must first turn to Article II (1), which provides a tripartite characterisation of such munitions.
5. Article II (1) (a) presents an initial, encompassing designation that is not dependent on the context of military application, therefore classing chemical weapons as:
"[t]oxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes."
6. Paragraph (b) of the same Article requires a "specifically designed"[4] condition with regard to munitions and devices that are intended to cause harm or death as a result of an intrinsic chemical component. It has always been the assertion that white phosphorus and its derivatives are incendiary devices designed for the purposes of illumination, such that it would fail to fulfil the requirements of a "specifically designed" chemical weapon.[5]
7. However, the initial statement of Article II, that the definitions of a "chemical weapons"[6] may be mutually exclusive, ensures that regardless of its intended primary purpose, there is potential for white phosphorus to fall under the classification of a chemical weapon as a result of Article II (1) (a). Nevertheless white phosphorus may have been excluded on a more constricted classification, had the initial definition of paragraph (a) assessed 'purposes not prohibited' based on intended design, rather than intended use.[7]
8. Article II (1) (a) raises two focal points: which substances can be classed as 'toxic chemicals' and as a result of this categorisation, which activities can be classed as permissible under the Convention? Dealing with the former first, Article II (2) outlines that:
" 'Toxic Chemical' means: [a]ny chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals."
9. What distinguishes a toxic from innocuous chemical is its ability to cause varying degrees of incapacitation as a direct result of its negative action on normal physiological activity.[8] There are no concessions as to the method or locale of production thus excluding even the use of biological metabolic or industrial by-products that are labelled as 'toxic chemicals'.[9] However, this is not restricted solely to the initial toxic chemical, but also to its derivatives and precursors.[10]; the proceeding paragraph, Art. II (3) ensures that it is not only the ensuing chemical product that is categorised but also the preceding components involved in synthesis. Again, this is also independent of the methodology used in production.[11]
White Phosphorus as a Chemical
10. At this point it is practical to look at what constitutes white phosphorus and its related chemical reactants. White phosphorus is an allotrope of elemental phosphorus in that they are chemically the same however they exhibit distinct physical forms.[12] White phosphorus is highly reactive with oxygen such that it ignites immediately upon contact with air.[13] This reaction leads to the formation of phosphorus pentoxide, which rapidly absorbs even minute amounts of moisture from the surrounding environment.[14] It is this absorption of water that leads to the formation of an effective smokescreen and polyphosphoric acid by-products.[15]
11. White phosphorus must detrimentally affect 'life processes' as a result of its chemical action so as to satisfy the required conditions for classification as a 'toxic chemical'.[16] The common assertion by various States' armed forces has been that white phosphorus is primarily an incendiary device and any subsequent injury as a result of exposure to white phosphorus, most likely to be skin and tissue burns, are a secondary effect due to the heat produced by burning phosphorus rather than a direct chemical interaction with an individual's physiology. [17]
12. However, this premise is too constricted to the most immediate, superficial pathology that may result from exposure and does not take into account the systemic and long-term effects that could arise from inhalation, oral or dermal exposure. Without digressing into a comprehensive review of the medical literature, a toxicological profile of white phosphorus, prepared by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, provides a perspective on the extend of white phosphorus-related pathologies. [18]
13. Initial dermal exposure to burning white phosphorus will result in local tissue (skin) destruction.[19] Using animal models, it has been shown that white phosphorus burns result in a vastly increased mortality rate compared to non-phosphorus burns, with this being attributed to increased levels of phosphorus in the blood, which will lead to reduced levels of calcium.[20] It is known that changes in physiological ratios of calcium/phosphorus can lead to potential lethal effects on heart function.[21] Additionally, studies on individuals accidentally burned by white phosphorus have shown that dermal exposure can result in liver and kidney abnormalities.[22] The by-products of white phosphorus reaction with oxygen, phosphorus pentoxide and phosphoric acids, also contribute to the burn damage of the skin by adsorbing moisture from local tissue and via corrosive action, respectively.[23]
14. One could argue that as phosphorus pentoxide and polyphosphoric acids are hazardous to health, then white phosphorus, as their precursor compound, is a de facto toxic chemical as a result of the restrictions imposed by Art. II (3). There is a similar amount of emphasis placed on precursors as to the toxic chemical itself, such that the definition may have a more extensive outreach than originally intended.
15. Military physicians in the United States have also attempted to outline the extent of damage caused by various forms of exposure to white phosphorus.[24] An interesting point is that they foremost qualify it as an "extremely toxic" substance. In their analyses, the effects of exposure to its smoke can range from mild irritation through to 'continued' exposure, which lacks any applicable time-scale, leading to a number of pathologies that are related to the inherent toxicity of the chemical and could not be solely attributed to dermal burns resulting from thermal exposure.[25] Recalling that a 'toxic chemical' is one that, via its chemical interaction with an individual's physiology, causes temporary incapacitation – albeit without any quantification as to what this may include – then surely even a mild irritation from exposure to white phosphorus smoke would justify its inclusion in such a category.
16. Overall, there are a number of negative interactions with human and animal physiology that occur as a direct result of white phosphorus chemical interactions through various routes of exposure. As the criteria for definition do not insist on boundaries that restrict determination of a chemical's status to the circumstances of warfare, then there is scope for a more pragmatic analysis resulting in the determination of white phosphorus as a toxic chemical.
Purposes Not Prohibited
17. Methods and reasoning by which toxic chemical may be employed without contravention are dealt within the text of the Convention, and for the use of white phosphorus in warfare, Art. II (9)(c) provides:
" Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare."
18. The initial statement essentially reinforces that chemical weapons, i.e. toxic chemicals as defined by the Convention, are prohibited in warfare, such that designating white phosphorus as a chemical weapon, due to its varied negative interactions with human physiology, would automatically preclude any use of such munitions regardless of the military context. However, the subsequent condition relaxes the initial stringency by requiring that military applications must also be reliant on the adverse effects, as defined by Art. II (2), of such chemical weapons.
19. What if white phosphorus was deployed with a dependency on the non-toxic capabilities of the chemical but in the knowledge that it was inherently toxic? Indulging the concept that, in the context of any conceivable anti-personnel application, white phosphorus is a chemical weapon as a result of its fulfilment of Art. II (1) and (2) criteria, then it still falls short of prohibition when engaged in 'shake and bake' tactics.[26] Such tactics use the incendiary and smoke properties of white phosphorus deployment and thus are "not dependent on the use of the toxic properties" of the substance, therefore working within the framework of Art. II (1) and (9)(c).
20. By relying on a condition of dependency on the toxic properties of a chemical, regardless of whether toxicity occurs during the non-dependent application of a such a weapon, then the CWC fails to ensure adequate protection against the use of white phosphorus munitions.
21. Article II (1) (a) sets qualitative and quantitative restrictions on toxic chemicals when applied in "purposes not prohibited".[27] At first glance it would appear that such standards are likely to be aimed at the non-military i.e. industrial purposes of toxic chemicals. Nevertheless, the lack of restricting guidelines gives way for such ambiguity to be valid in an analysis of such munitions, the basis of which should be to identify as to whether the munitions employed during legitimate offensives are excessive in their use of white phosphorus.
22. There has been no known re-design of the munitions currently in use in order to take advantage of its harmful chemical component, such as to constitute a prohibited application. Moreover, although it appears difficult to quantify the amount of white phosphorus that may be employed during warfare, it could be taken that the restriction in quantity refers to each individual incendiary device rather than attempting to confine the extent in conflict. Thus, referring back to the assumption that there has been no radical change in engineering then it is likely that the types of devices used and quantity of white phosphorus would not disregard restrictions imposed by Article II.
23. Consequently, the purposes not prohibited outline in the Convention appear to proscribe the use of chemical weapons in warfare only when there is an objective attempt to exploit the adverse chemical effects of the munitions. Even though there may be unwarranted side-effects of deploying white phosphorus as a smokescreen or incendiary, the CWC appears to fall short in assuring that all possible effects of chemical weapons are prohibited whether they were intended or not.
Beyond the CWC
24. As previously mentioned, it has generally been the assertion that white phosphorus munitions should be classed as incendiary devices. Thus, a more obvious, direct application of international law falls under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)[28], specifically Protocol III.[29]
25. Incendiary devices, as the very name suggests, are those designed to ignite objects or cause burn injuries to an individual. Despite an apparently manifest rationale, there is still debate as to whether Protocol III serves to include white phosphorus as a prohibited incendiary device. Paragraph I exclusions of the same protocol – munitions that have an incidental incendiary effect are not accommodated in the primary definition of such devices – forms the basis for the argument that once again white phosphorus is not restrained by international law.
26. Similar to the analysis of the Chemical Weapons Convention, there are two aspects that will serve to determine its legal status in CCW context: are, or were, white phosphorus munitions primarily designed for Paragraph I activities? If so, then they inevitably fulfil the second requirement of having non-intrinsic incendiary action.
27. Fenian arsonists are known to have used white phosphorus in the 19th Century, most commonly to take advantage of its incendiary action. Both the British and American armed forces extensively used white phosphorus-based munitions in anti-personnel roles during World War II and more recently there has been evidence for the use of directed application against insurgents, and possibly civilians, in the Middle East. The use of white phosphorus over various eras of warfare is suggestive of a conscious intent for these munitions to have anti-personnel applications. Looking at State practise, U.S. military perception appears to be that, regarding its use against individuals within the context of civilian protection, it is thought of in the same context as conventional weaponry:
"It's part of our conventional-weapons inventory and we use it like we use any other conventional weapon".[30]
Following on from this:
"U.S. forces used white phosphorous both in its classic screening mechanism and (as an incendiary device) ... when they encountered insurgents who were in foxholes and other covered positions who they could not dislodge any other way."[31]
And finally:
"(It) can also function as an antipersonnel flame compound capable of causing serious burns."[32]
In contrast, the UK government has asserted that its application of white phosphorus during combat is strictly reserved for screening purposes and do not take advantage of its incendiary capabilities.[33] Differences in practise may reflect the signatory status of Protocol III: endorsement of this aspect of the Convention on Conventional Weapons has yet to be fulfilled by the USA.
28. Given the attitude towards its implementation, it would be difficult to argue that white phosphorus munitions have been designed with the explicit lack of knowledge that they would serve in an anti-personnel as well as a screening role. Its design is one with neither a sole primary purpose as a screening agent, nor as an incendiary device, but in the knowledge that the 'standard' function will be to provide a rapid smokescreen with the potential for anti-personnel incendiary uses.
29. Provided that white phosphorus munitions are designed with the intent towards possible incendiary uses, then it falls to Paragraph I(b) exclusions to determine if Protocol III is applicable to such weapons:
"(b) Incendiary weapons do not include: (i) munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;"
Casting back to the explanation on its action, it must be recalled that upon contact with air, white phosphorus ignites and as a result of this combustion produces hygroscopic by-products that rapidly form a dense smoke. Therefore, it is clear that the incendiary effects of white phosphorus are primary in relation to the production of smoke.
30. If it is an applied incendiary effect that is intended during military deployment then by that very definition such an effect cannot be held to be incidental. This could be thought of as an extension of same principle seen earlier when dealing with 'purposes not prohibited' under the Chemical Weapons Convention that permitted the use of chemical-based munitions provided that the chemical action of such arms was an incidental effect of their use rather than the primary objective. It would be difficult to justify reasoning that would suggest white phosphorus munitions are exempt from Protocol III solely as a result of its categorisation as a 'smoke system' identified in paragraph (b), particularly when this incendiary effect is put to direct effect in warfare.
31. Nevertheless, Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons is not intended to prohibit incendiary devices but to better regulate military conduct to ensure the protection, amongst others, of civilians in conflict and ultimately serve as an umbrella to the Geneva Conventions for specific weaponry.
White Phosphorus is a Permissible Chemical Weapon
32. Military opinions maintain that white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon whilst State actors horrified by its effects hold that is must be prohibited by the CWC as a result of nothing more than its fundamental nature. However, it appears that not much thought has gone into the possibility that white phosphorus may be a chemical weapon which has a legitimate purpose outside of those proscribed by treaty.
33. This analysis qualifies a statement, regarding the legitimacy of white phosphorus, made by the spokesman of Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which oversees the application of the CWC:
"White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke [...] if that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use [...] (if) the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited".[34]
Although this clarification forgoes identifying it as a chemical weapon, the OPCW recognises that there is a duality of legitimacy in the application of white phosphorus-based munitions.
34. Under scrutiny, white phosphorus fails to uphold the two conditions set-out by the Convention on Conventional Weapons that would exclude it from prohibition in the military context outlined by Protocol III: the rationale behind the design of white phosphorus munitions and the incidentality of their effects. Additionally, the practises by various States' armed forces appear to reflect their signatory status of Protocol III suggesting that the applicability of the CCW to white phosphorus munitions is a commonly held conception.
35. An analysis of the Chemical Weapons Convention was less straightforward in that it demanded a segmented approach to determining the legal status of a particular chemical. As the CWC does not insist upon a military context for its definition of 'toxic chemical' and 'chemical weapon', then as we have seen, white phosphorus, due to its various harmful physiological interactions, is a de jure toxic chemical. By fulfilling that definition it has potential to be classed as a chemical weapon if it is then intended for purposes that are proscribed by the text.
36. However, further restrictions are imposed that prevent its outright classification as a chemical weapon. It would appear that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon only insofar as it is applied in a prohibited manner. Thus, although white phosphorus deployment as a smokescreen may have adverse physiological consequences, unless its application was a conscious attempt to take advantage of its toxic properties then its use is one that is not prohibited. Thus contextually it is not a chemical weapon.
37. There is a clear need for further insight into the international legal status of white phosphorus, with particular input from those States involved in conflict or whose armed forces are employed in extraterritorial duty. Nevertheless, current research into strengthening the Chemical Weapons Convention appears to overlook the flawed flexibility relating to the purposes by which chemical weapons may be legitimately used, and it is an issue that has to be decisively addressed if chemical weapons are going to receive adequate prohibition.[35]
Copyright, Iain J. MacLeod, 2006
[1] Iain J. MacLeod is a doctoral student in pathology at the University of Cambridge and has an LL.M. in International Law
[2] Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC) entered into force 29 April 1997.
[3] Fidler, D.P., "The Use of White Phosphorus Munitions by U.S. Military Forces in Iraq", American Society of International Law Insights, 6 December 2005
[4] CWC, Article II, paragraph 1 (b): "[m]unitions and devices specifically designed to cause death or harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicalsÉ"
[5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/4483690.stm; http://news.independent.co.uk/world...ticle327379.ece - accessed on 5 August 2006
[6] CWC, Article II: " 'Chemical Weapons' means the following, together or separately: "
[7] Such that paragraph (a) would read: "[t]oxic chemicals and their precursors, except where designed for purposes not prohibited under this ConventionÉ" thus relying on the original intent of use rather than potential abuses of such munitions.
[8] CWC, Article II, paragraph 2
[9] CWC, Article II, paragraph 2: "[t]his includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or method of productionÉ"
[10] CWC, Article II, paragraph 1 (a)
[11] CWC, Article II, paragraph 3: "[a]ny chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the productionÉ"
[12] Ebbing, D.D. and Gammon, S.D., "General Chemistry" 6th Edition at p.969
[13] ibid.
[14] id. at p.970
[15] id.
[16] supra. note 9
[17] supra. note 4
[18] "Toxicological Profile for White Phosphorus", prepared for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September 1997. Found at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp103.pdf
[19] ibid. at section 2.1, paragraph 4-5
[20] ibid. at section 2.2.4.1, paragraph 2-3
[21] id.
[22] ibid. at section 2.2.4.2, paragraph 6-9
[23] ibid. at section 2.2.4.2, paragraph 10-11
[24] U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Detailed Facts About White Phosphorous found at http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/dts/docs/detwp.pdf
[25] These include: bronchitis, persistent coughing, severe burns, weakness, anemia, loss of appetite, and possibly pneumonia. Exposure can also cause thirst cyanosis, abdominal pain, jaundice; acute poisoning produces shock, coma and death in a short time (symptoms may subside and then return); liver and kidney damage may occur.
[26]
[27] CWC, Article II (1)(a): "[...]as long as types and quantities are consistent with such purposes."
[28] Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) entered into force December 1983
[29]
[30] Reuters Dispatch, Wednesday, 16 November 2005 23:38:30
[31] ibid.
[32] supra.note 23
[33] BBC News "White phosphorus: weapon on the edge" accessed on 05 August 2006 found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm
[34] ibid.
[35] The Harvard-Sussex Programme on Chemical and Biological Weapons, Draft Convention found at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/...x-Program-draft convention.htm |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
| they better not be using guns |
|
|
| WV Booker |
| it's ok for Israel to break international law because the good ole US of A will kill any attempts in the UN of condemning Israel's actions....... we are their 'get out of jail free card'...... |
|
|
| patcracker |
| The crux of the problem is you are not supposed to use WP on people. Whats next ?Nukes? How can you codemn terroism when legitmate governments are stooping to uncivilized tactics such as this. And by the way the US is just starting to find out the long term problems associated with depeleted uranium. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
yep,
the comparison to bullets is damn silly!!!! are bullets chemical weapons? did we attack Iraq because we suspected that they had bullets? |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
| YES ONLY GUNS AND SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE ALLOWED |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
YES ONLY GUNS AND SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE ALLOWED |
so suicide bombers are bad? they kill themselves for thier cause. They were either tortured into doing it, or really felt for thier cause.
but chemical weapons dropped from a plane onto civilains are not bad? they dont sacrifice a fucking thing. they just kill. and torture people.
Dont you know that they have proven that some of the suicide bombers were actually tortured by americans, untill they were "allowed" to suicide bomb, to get out of thier torture. Of course you can torture someone into wishing they were dead, and suicide bombing.
Can you torture someone into flying a plane and dropping chemical weapons?
go watch more of your memri propaganda. leave us alone.
FW |
|
|
| MegaWatt |
Since when did Willy P become fucking chemical weapons.
"it has a long history of use in warfare for both offensive and target-marking purposes."
"WP is believed to have been first used by Fenian arsonists in the 19th century in the form of a solution of WP in carbon disulfide."
"Britain's army introduced its first factory-built WP grenades in late 1916."
"In World War II, white phosphorus mortar bombs, shells, rockets and grenades were used extensively by American, Commonwealth, and to a lesser extent Japanese forces, in both smoke-generating and antipersonnel roles."
"The U.S. Army and Marines used WP extensively in WWII and later in Korea...and again in Vietnam."
""In the December 1994 battle for Grozny in Chechnya, every fourth or fifth Russian artillery or mortar round fired was a smoke or white phosphorus round."
So.....what's the problem with Israel using them...and why, now, are they being classified - by some - to be chemical weapons....bullshit |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
so suicide bombers are bad? they kill themselves for thier cause. They were either tortured into doing it, or really felt for thier cause.
but chemical weapons dropped from a plane onto civilains are not bad? they dont sacrifice a fucking thing. they just kill. and torture people.
Dont you know that they have proven that some of the suicide bombers were actually tortured by americans, untill they were "allowed" to suicide bomb, to get out of thier torture. Of course you can torture someone into wishing they were dead, and suicide bombing.
Can you torture someone into flying a plane and dropping chemical weapons?
go watch more of your memri propaganda. leave us alone.
FW |
who gives a shit arabs are fucking animals and if they are not fighting the west then they are fighing each other..look at gaza. hamas and fatah faction are now fighting each other which in anyones eyes should show them that these people can't get along with anyone not even themselves and if it wasn't for america they would be broke like africa but because they have oil, they matter. and if america didn't showthem how to get it out ofthe ground, they would have nothing |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by MegaWatt
Since when did Willy P become fucking chemical weapons.
"it has a long history of use in warfare for both offensive and target-marking purposes."
"WP is believed to have been first used by Fenian arsonists in the 19th century in the form of a solution of WP in carbon disulfide."
"Britain's army introduced its first factory-built WP grenades in late 1916."
"In World War II, white phosphorus mortar bombs, shells, rockets and grenades were used extensively by American, Commonwealth, and to a lesser extent Japanese forces, in both smoke-generating and antipersonnel roles."
"The U.S. Army and Marines used WP extensively in WWII and later in Korea...and again in Vietnam."
""In the December 1994 battle for Grozny in Chechnya, every fourth or fifth Russian artillery or mortar round fired was a smoke or white phosphorus round."
So.....what's the problem with Israel using them...and why, now, are they being classified - by some - to be chemical weapons....bullshit |
so you advocate dropping white phosphorus on citizens and childeren? |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
so you advocate dropping white phosphorus on citizens and childeren? |
3
on arabs
fucken A |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by MegaWatt
Since when did Willy P become fucking chemical weapons.
"it has a long history of use in warfare for both offensive and target-marking purposes."
"WP is believed to have been first used by Fenian arsonists in the 19th century in the form of a solution of WP in carbon disulfide."
"Britain's army introduced its first factory-built WP grenades in late 1916."
"In World War II, white phosphorus mortar bombs, shells, rockets and grenades were used extensively by American, Commonwealth, and to a lesser extent Japanese forces, in both smoke-generating and antipersonnel roles."
"The U.S. Army and Marines used WP extensively in WWII and later in Korea...and again in Vietnam."
""In the December 1994 battle for Grozny in Chechnya, every fourth or fifth Russian artillery or mortar round fired was a smoke or white phosphorus round."
So.....what's the problem with Israel using them...and why, now, are they being classified - by some - to be chemical weapons....bullshit |
It's a chemical, and it's a weapon....do I need to go further? That's how it is a chemical weapon.
Chemical + weapon = chemical weapon |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
3
on arabs
fucken A |
but using chemical weapons on citizens and children, wouldnt that be terrorism? |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
but using chemical weapons on citizens and children, wouldnt that be terrorism? |
No, because we don't call it terrorism. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
but using chemical weapons on citizens and children, wouldnt that be terrorism? |
Then it has been terrorism since we started using it during WW2 Along with the British who used it also. How do you think Dresden and Tokyo were burned down in a night? |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Do you support using weapons that burn people all the way down to the bone?
Do you support using depleted uranium knowing that almost every American over there will have major health problems in a few years? |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
but using chemical weapons on citizens and children, wouldnt that be terrorism? |
history shows that their kids will grow up and be terrorists anyway. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Do you support using weapons that burn people all the way down to the bone?
Do you support using depleted uranium knowing that almost every American over there will have major health problems in a few years? |
because of sept 11 people have health problems here |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
real funny
so the cause is the justification? |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
real funny
so the cause is the justification? |
THE CAUSE THE CAUSE
the cause seems to be arabs can't live with each other...hamas and fatah explane that one..stop killing each other and maybe someone will want to open up a fucking business there |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
because of sept 11 people have health problems here |
umm...ok...not the same issue. The American forces are using bullets with depleted uranium. They first tried this in Gulf War I - which led to thousands of soldiers(AMERICAN SOLDIERS! SO "REAL" PEOPLE) getting Gulf War Syndrome. This war we are using it much more. The war is also lasting a lot longer, and the bravest soldiers that have spent 2-3 tours in Iraq will have to deal with probably much worse symptoms in a few years.
Do you support the poisoning of American troops? |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
umm...ok...not the same issue. The American forces are using bullets with depleted uranium. They first tried this in Gulf War I - which led to thousands of soldiers(AMERICAN SOLDIERS! SO "REAL" PEOPLE) getting Gulf War Syndrome. This war we are using it much more. The war is also lasting a lot longer, and the bravest soldiers that have spent 2-3 tours in Iraq will have to deal with probably much worse symptoms in a few years.
Do you support the poisoning of American troops? |
don't worry we will be pulling out soon.... |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
THE CAUSE THE CAUSE
the cause seems to be arabs can't live with each other...hamas and fatah explane that one..stop killing each other and maybe someone will want to open up a fucking business there |
|
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
It's a chemical, and it's a weapon....do I need to go further? That's how it is a chemical weapon.
Chemical + weapon = chemical weapon |
Gunpowder is a chemical compound. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
| Fates you say it is illegal but in the story you linked it said that many groups claim it SHOULD be banned. Does that not imply that it is not? |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Gunpowder is a chemical compound. |
Oh come on, dude. White phosphorous itself is a chemical and a weapon. In what way is it possibly not a chemical weapon? The second it touches your skin it burns all the way to the bone. Is it legal? Unfortunately, yes. Is it morally reprehensible? Absolutely. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
| Agreed that it is morally reprehensible. And I am only talking semantics I guess. I just don't know what a "chemical weapon" is. It seems to be a sliding scale, with items only being banned once there is a replacement of some sort. Some how Israel should be held accountable if they dropped this shits on civilians, and I am not so sure we shouldn't do something if they dropped it on military personnel. But it is legal, so we will not. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
| actually, since it is a chemical weapon it could be argued it is against the law to use on citizens. however since we ourselves dont obey the law then the law can be somewhat subjective. |
|
|
|
|
|
