BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 01:02 PM

From pdq's link.
On November 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a denial of the chemical weapons charge, stating:

"The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at anytime in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation. Furthermore, the United States does not under any circumstance support or condone the development, production, acquisition, transfer or use of chemical weapons by any country. All chemical weapons currently possessed by the United States have been declared to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention."

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 01:12 PM

Also, all the napalm that the US had was systematically destroyed, and was completely gone by 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 01:17 PM

Emma
The only way this clown can justify his stance on chemical weapons is to ignore the facts put before him - to date he hasn't even acknowledged, let alone disputed them.
He will continue to wriggle like a worm cut in half - all movement - no substance.
He is really not worth the time and effort expended on his non-arguments.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 01:45 PM

Israel got the munition from USA.
USA does not make or supply chemical weapons.

You called it a chemical weapon attack to make it sound much worse than it was.
You just spout propaganda.
I try to be honest.
You also called it genocidal.
Do you stand by that description?
Do you Emma?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 02:11 PM

Oh for heavens sake! - are you trying to drive me to total frustration or simply drive anyone who disagrees with you off this thread again Keith?


"As an INCENDIARY WEAPON WP burns fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire. Since WWII, it has been extensively used as a weapon, capable of causing serious burns or death" - Wiki from the US Army Center

Want to disagree with the US Army too?

It is ALSO a highly efficient smoke producing agent used by tanks and armoured vechicles to mask movement from the enemy
Are you stating this was solely how it was used in the urban densely populated area of Gaza city - because the photos and other evidence don't seem to support this

In fact, the Israeli government released a report in July 2009 that confirmed that the IDF used white phosphorus in BOTH exploding munitions AND smoke projectiles.
The report acknowledged the use of exploding munitions by Israeli ground and naval forces.
Contrary to eyewitness testimony and considerable physical evidence to the contary, the report continued to deny the use of these munitions in populated areas and maintained smoke screening projectiles were the 'majority' of the munitions containing white phosphorus employed by the IDF

The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, not the Chemical Weapons Convention in its Protocol III prohibits the use of all air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations, or for indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians but specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effects are purely secondary, such as smoke grenades.

To claim that white phosphourous missiles fired from a distance which rain 100s of burning pieces of phosphourous soaked felt into urban areas fall into this category is blatent contempt for the Protocol

The legal position however, is not the only consideration in any war.
For instance, concerning the U.S. use of WP in Iraq, the British Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman at the time Sir Menzies Campbell, said

"The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency.
The denial of use followed by the admission will simply convince the doubters that there was something to hide"

Finally -
"They did not use it to inflict casualties. It would not be effective for that because it is not a weapon."

Keith have you seen the photographs of phosphorus burns - the description of a child simply 'melting'?

'Bake' is a sick expression to use against combatants but it means what it says! and not - you will notice - 'shake and smoke'

To 'burn out the enemy' means exactly that when the 'versatle' phosphorous is used in a house

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 02:22 PM

Emma, your report made it clear what they meant by those terms.
Everyone knows that phosphorus burns, but WP smoke is not an effective way of hurting people. Weapons do the job better.
The writer of your report confirmed that.

All along I have just been attacking Jim's emotive hype and propaganda.
He called it a chemical weapon attack to liken it to Halabja. Remember those mounds of mothers and children.
That was misleading propaganda.
USA does not supply chemical weapons.
I objected to that while agreeing that the use was deplorable.
I also objected to him calling it genocidal.
Was it Emma?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 03:28 PM

"You called it a chemical weapon attack to make it sound much worse than it was."
She called it a chemical weapon attack because it was a chemical weapon attack.
You have denied it was a chemical weapon attack despite the fact that it was a chemical weapon attack.
"He called it a chemical weapon attack to liken it to Halabja."
When and where? (I don't really expect a reply to this - you don't do awkward questions - but I just thought I'd try).
"I also objected to him calling it genocidal."
I believe that if they were not in the public eye Israel would have no hesitation in wiping out any Palestinian in the way of their territorial ambitions - or anybody else for that matter. However, I did offer to modify the term to 'ethnic cleansing' some time back so as not to offend your sensibilities and I have not used either term since (though I have no doubt that this is a fair description of their behaviour) - yet, in the true spirit of debate, you have chosen to ignore this fact - methinks the lady doth protest too much!
The state you are defending is a terrorist state, it has slaughtered unarmed civilians including the elderly, women and children, it has destroyed homes hospitals and schools, it has used chemical weapons upon civilians, it has attempted to starve the population into submission and it has seized Palestinian land (and is now making it legal to do so by altering their laws.
As a terrorist state it has carried out assassinations, is involved in wholesale espionage (only recently it carried out an assassination using forged Irish passports) and has been publicly seen in an act of piracy.
As I said - a terrorist state.
The fact that its policy is heavily influenced by religious fundamentalism makes it as unstable as any of the Muslim states of a similar leaning and the fact that is a nuclear power makes it a world threat.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 03:52 PM

You used the term "ethnic cleansing" yesterday.
By calling it a chemical weapons attack, you liken it to actual chemical weapons attacks, e.g. Halabja, but all far more horrific.
You and Emma call it a chemical weapon. The USA who made and supplied it insist it is not.
They neither make nor supply them, so it was not a chemical weapon and it is hyped up propaganda to call it that.
The reality is bad enough.

To call it genocidal was more than hyped up propaganda.
That was blatantly untrue..

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 04:38 PM

"By calling it a chemical weapons attack..."
I'm doing no such thing - it was an attack with chemical weapons therefore it was a chemical attack (which was at first denied then admitted by the perpetrators) - I compared it to nothing; you are, as usual, making it up as you go along and putting words into my mouth.
It is really immaterial when I used the term 'ethnic cleansing'; if I used it yesterday I had overlooked having done so (that's what their policy amounts to as far as I'm concerned); but my point was that I agreed to use it instead of genocide (my attitude to this was made in my previous post) some time ago and you have deliberately overlooked this in order to score points and divert attention from your own totally untenable position.
"The USA who made and supplied it insist it is not."
Would this be the same USA that used Napalm and Agent Orange on peasant farmers in Viet Nam? Hardly a trustworthy source of information I would have thought (though a fairly apt bedfellow).
I wonder why my dictionaries haven't picked up their assurances?
"That was blatantly untrue.."
Israel's purity laws suggest otherwise - and you've never responded to the Shatila and Sabra massacres that Israel played a full part in - another of your convenient little 'oversights'!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:38 PM

""Often exaggerating, sometimes inventing.""

Difficult, I'd say, to exaggerate, or invent, the piles of rubble that pass for towns in Gaza, or to exaggerate or invent the origin of the explosive devices which produced those piles of rubble.

The many pictures and videos of sheet covered corpses of men, women, and children wantonly destroyed by well armed, but not apparently so well trained, Israeli soldiers, are neither invented, nor exaggerated.

Israel's activities are among the most comprehensively recorded in history, and yet their PR hacks continue to insult the intelligence of the rest of humanity, by use of exaggerated, and often invented, excuses.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:15 PM

""They neither make nor supply them, so it was not a chemical weapon and it is hyped up propaganda to call it that.""


White Phosphorus, when exposed to air, is so reactive that it instantly rips the oxygen out of the air and undergoes an exothermal chemical reaction (for Keith's benefit, that is a chemical reaction which gives out heat! Lots of it!)

It continues to burn, as long as it has access to oxygen (not necessarily air - once it is burning it will rip oxygen from most liquids), or until it is totally combined and the reaction ceases.

I have seen a small piece of White Phosphorus burn completely through a human arm, and continue to burn into a table top beneath.

However the US military may conveniently choose to classify it, Injury caused by White Phosphorus is a chemical process, so it is disingenuous in the extreme to continue to deny that it is a chemical weapon.

Anybody in close proximity to an exploding WP shell, or grenade, will almost certainly suffer at best severe permanent disfigurement and internal damage, and at worst, a long drawn out and agonising death.

I'd like to understand why you would set yourself up as an apologist for any state which authorises its use against civilians, and pleae don't insult my intelligence by claiming that a house to house operation requres a smoke screen. Such a screen would be as much to the advantage of defenders, as to attackers.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:50 PM

Jim, You said that this attack was genocidal.
You can not substitute ethnic cleansing for genocidal.
It is not a less severe form of genocide, it is totally different.
How can this attack be called ethnic cleansing?

Jim, Don and Emma, your calling WP a chemical weapon does not make it so.
USA has very publically, on the international stage, destroyed its chemical weapons, but not WP.
No international outcry because all armed forces use it including all those that have outlawed chemical weapons.
It is not a chemical weapon.
You are not in a position to change an internationally agreed classification.
Can you name one government that agrees with you?

I have not supported or defended Israel on any of this.
I have just called for some honesty from you propagandists.
Calling it a chemical attack was wrong and calculated to make it sound infinitely worse than the truth (which is bad enough).
Calling it genocide was a ludicrous flight of propagandist fantasy.

(Science leson for Don)
You said "White Phosphorus, when exposed to air, is so reactive that it instantly rips the oxygen out of the air and undergoes an exothermal chemical reaction (for Keith's benefit, that is a chemical reaction which gives out heat! Lots of it!)"

For your benefit, that is called combustion, or burning.
It can not take oxygen from water. Water puts the fire out.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 07:03 PM

Coalition forces in Iraq have used white phosphorus in both illumination rounds and in smoke-producing ones. This is standard, everyday warfare stuff.

White phosphorus can be used in incendiary rounds which are to be used against targets such as buildings.

They are neither "chemical weapons" nor "anti-personel" rounds.

Illumination shells are set to activate at a certain elevation so that they drift slowly downward, with the help of a fire-proof parachute, and illuminate the battlefield.

If such a shell were to fired directly into a building, it would not trigger the elevation sensor and would not activate.

Smoke rounds could be fired into a building to injure occupants, but this is not an authorized use. Those ordering such actions woud be in some trouble with the brass.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 07:18 PM

You are now playing with words - phosphorus is a CHEMICAL - it is by definition poisonous, it can severely burn and it can kill - that is part of the definition of its effects.
It is a war crime to use it on civilians and the Israeklis have used it in such a manner; therefore, whatever word games you are now attempting to play, the Israelis are war criminals.
Genocide;
Again you play with words.
The Shatila and Sabra refugee camp massacres were directed towards Palastinian and Lenanese Arabs. the death toll is unknown but is reckoned between 800 and 3,500. The Israelis in charge allowed the massacres to take place and provided the weapons.
A bit of cut-n-paste for you as you seem so fond of it.
"In 1982, an independent commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were, directly or indirectly, involved. The Israeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and in early 1983 it found Israel indirectly responsible for the event, and that Ariel Sharon bears personal responsibility for the massacre for allowing the Phalangists into the camps. The Israelis had been supplying the Phalangists with weapons and equipment, and had provided transportation of the Phalangists to the camps. The commission, which was not a judicial body which could recommend criminal charges, but an investigative body only, demanded that Sharon resign as head of the Defence Ministry. Sharon initially refused to resign, but after the death of an Israeli and the injury of ten other Israelis from a hand grenade thrown into a dispersing Peace Now rally, a compromise was reached where he resigned as Defense minister, but remained in the cabinet as Minister without portfolio. Sharon would later be elected Prime Minister of Israel."
Genocide in my book, especially as you have taken it upon yourself to re-define 'chemical weapons'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 07:19 PM

Here is another oustanding source of facts about chemical and biological agents:


                                                                   http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 08:28 PM

"Jim, Don and Emma, your calling WP a chemical weapon does not make it so"

You know Keith I have often wondered if you ever actually read what I ACTUALLY posted rather than what you wanted to read - now I have it confirmed

If you pay me the basic courtesy of reading my posts you will see that no where have I ever referred to WP as a 'chemical weapon'; indeed I have been very careful to refer to it by it's official designation as an 'incendiary weapon' although you have continually denied this universally accepted definition too

Blame my scientific training for this!
I rejoice in the title of 'feminist fact finder' bestowed upon me by another catter although this was intended as a gross insult :)

As I have repeated consistently, there are chemicals used militarily that are not scheduled by the Chemical Weapons Convention, and thus are not controlled under the CWC treaties.
These include Incendiary or explosive chemicals (such as napalm, extensively used by the United States in Vietnam, white phosphorus or dynamite) because their destructive effects are primarily due to fire or explosive force, and not direct chemical action and also biological weapons and defoliants

For the purposes of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III an "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

There is unfortunately the possibility of fudging this definition as the protocol also maintains that
Incendiary weapons do not include: munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

What I have attempted to demonstrate in several posts is that most authorities consider and describe air fired missiles containing white phosphorus which rain 100s of flaming phosphorous soaked pieces of felt as indeed an incendiary weapons

While WP is used as a smokescreen it is also used as an incendiary weapon , BUT can also be deployed as an anti-personnel flame compound capable of causing potentially fatal burns
When used against enemy combatants in this way it is not actually 'illegal' under the existing protocols - hence the 'shake and bake' operation in Iraq I mentioned in a previous post

"During the Vietnam War, the "White Phosphorus (WP), M110, was also used as a marker round. It could be fitted with PD, VT, and MT fuzes. When the situation called for it, white phosphorus became a devastating weapon against personnel". - The 1/92nd Field Artillery Association - Vietnam


HOWEVER

Under the Convention on Certain conventional weapons

It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.



The Israeli government released a report in July 2009 that confirmed that the IDF used white phosphorus in BOTH exploding munitions and smoke projectiles
Contrary to eyewitness testimony and physical evidence, the report argues that the use of these munitions were limited to unpopulated areas for marking and signalling

(Please refer back to my previous post for photographic evidence that in fact WP air fired missiles were fired over densely populated urban areas in Gaza City)


Keith I don't know if your continual assertions against all scientific and military evidence that WP can not inflict harm because it is 'not a weapon' is pathological or simply perverse
It is certainly grossly inaccurate and whether it is your motive or not effectively sabotages any debate on the subject

As someone whose first career was in the chemical industry I really do recommend that you do some simple basic research on the effects of phosphorous

"For your benefit, that is called combustion, or burning.
It can not take oxygen from water. Water puts the fire out."

WP ignites spontaneously when exposed to the air and will continue to smoulder either until it is completely burnt up or when deprived of oxygen.
IT CANNOT BE PUT OUT BY WATER, ONLY BY SAND OR MUD.

(While water will put out white phosphorus very temporarily as soon as the phosphorus has access to air, it will start burning again. White phosphorus wounds are very unpleasant, since the phosphorus must be thoroughly washed out with a nonpolar solvent that is also noninflammable, for obvious reasons, before the burn can be treated. Carbon tetrachloride would be suitable, but it is dangerous because of the cancer hazard.)

Wounds resulting from phosphorous burns gradually become whiter and then toxic. Even small burns continue to expand. In some cases, the patient's condition deteriorates and results in death.

A doctor reporting on treating patients in Gaza said
"Some of these patients burn for hours. One of the patients, after two hours we opened the wound and noticed smoke came out of the wound!"
Dr Abu Shaban said he removed some of the particles from the wound and when he held them up and they came into contact with the air "a flame came out".

I await an apology or at least an explanation from you Keith for misquoting me

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 08:47 PM

Keith I don't know if your continual assertions against all scientific and military evidence that WP can not inflict harm because it is 'not a weapon' is pathological or simply perverse..." ~ Emma B

Talk about misquotes and misrepresentations.

You owe Keith an apology, not the other way around.

Everybody knows that WP can hurt people, but marking targets, illuminating the battlefield and obscuring troop movements with smoke are normal everyday activities in war. Neither civilians or combatants are directly targeted.

The WP "incendiary devices" are used to start fires, but I see no honest evdence that coalition forces are using them in Iraq or Afghanistan, and precious little evidence that the Israelis used them in Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 09:12 PM

They did not use it to inflict casualties. It would not be effective for that because it is not a weapon.
25 Jul 10 - 12:58 PM

I agree WP is too dangerous to use in populated areas, but it is not a weapon
25 Jul 10 - 03:18 AM

"You called it a chemical weapon attack to make it sound much worse than it was.
You just spout propaganda.
I try to be honest.
You also called it genocidal.
Do you stand by that description?
Do you Emma? "

Please show me anywhere atall I either called WP anything other than an Incendiary weapon or used the word genocidal in connection with its use
Be honest
Do you stand by your accusations?
Can you Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:15 AM

The effects of "non-chemical phosphorus", as used by a country that "doesn't manufacture, use or supply chemical weapons"
The article comes complete with photographs.
Jim Carroll

The Independent
08 November 2005

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
The IRC estimates that at least 60% of the people killed in the assault of Fallujah are women, children and elderly.
Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.
On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."
The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: "The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons."
In December the US government formally denied the reports, describing them as "widespread myths". "Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used 'outlawed' phosphorus shells in Fallujah," the USinfo website said. "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.
"They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."
But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.
In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.
"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."
Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.
A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."
The documentary, entitled Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:21 AM

Emma, I am sorry.
To be honest, I only skim read your posts looking for the salient points.
Honestly Emma, most people do not read long posts at all, but I know I criticised you before for selective editing and you are trying your hardest to be fair and balanced.

In my defence, you have never challenged Don or Jim for calling it a chemical weapon, and they have only attacked me for refusing to. You did seem to be supporting their position.

I have never denied that smoke munitions can cause injury, and said its use here was deplorable and possibly illegal.
Don pointed out that a direct hit, or a few feet away, will cause serious injuries.
Conventional munitions are effective over a much greater range.
WP smoke would not be deployed to cause casualties because it would cause vastly less casualties than conventional weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:31 AM

Jim, thank you for pointing out that phosphorus is a CHEMICAL.
So is every other substance in the world Jim.
Every explosion is a chemical reaction, so all weapons are chemical weapons. Right?

That is just sophistry Jim. By calling the smoke used in Gaza a chemical weapons attack, people would assume you meant chemical weapons as understood internationally.
A deliberate and cynical deception to make the incident seem far worse than it actually was.

By all means discuss the Mid East conflict, but be honest.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:54 AM

So the statements by doctors treating wounded civilians (including the elderly, women and children) from phosphorus fragments during the incursion into Gaza, as reported by independent observers and as seen on the BBC documentary on the incursion were "to make the incident seem far worse than it actually was."
You have cited the people who carried out the Falluja atrocity as witnesses for your claim that phosphorus is not a chemical weapon - it seemed to have worked quite efficiently for them.
You really are an apologist for atrocities, aren't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 04:43 AM

Statements by doctors showed how bad it actually was.
Your describing it, wrongly and deceptively, as a chemical attack was an attempt to make it sound far worse than it actually was.
Blatant propaganda.

Falluja was a battle. Fighters on both sides were trying to kill each other.
The witness, cited by Emma, explained how they found WP effective for "screening," "flushing", and "psycholgical" effects.
For inflicting casualties they used weapons.

We are not a million miles apart.
This whole argument was just caused by your dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:26 AM

You started this theme off rather spectacularly by inventing two types of phosphorus - lethal and non lethal, claiming (without corroborating evidence) that the Israelis were using the non-lethal type.
You have been forced to back-pedal desperately, and are now claiming that they were only using smoke bombs (despite the injuries to civililians - no propaganda needed, the filmed evidence speaks for itself, as does your appalling apologist attitude).
The Independent article I cited carries some horrific photographs of the injuries inflicted by your 'smoke bombs'. The film footage of the bombardment of Gaza shows clearly the burning phosphorus fragments raining down on built-up areas - two and two makes chemical weapons being used on civilians, whatever colour you care to paint it.
Today's news says the indications are that Israel will refuse to co-operate with the United Nations Human Rights Committe on the piracy enquiry.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:36 AM

"The witness, cited by Emma, explained how they found WP effective for "screening," "flushing", and "psycholgical" effects.
For inflicting casualties they used weapons."

Please don't 'skip' what I said Keith

The article I quoted from written by a captain, a first lieutenant and a sergeant, was a review of the attack on Falluja in November 2004 and in particular of the use of indirect fire, mainly mortars.

It makes quite clear that WP was used as a weapon not just as illumination or camouflage

"This tactic of forcing opponents out of cover is not new and should not really have come as a surprise. An article looking back at the Vietnam war published in 1996 by a US armoured unit (1st Battalion, 69th Armor) referred to "Willie Pete" weapons and their use in getting North Vietnamese troops to leave their positions:

"Our normal procedure was to fire these things at a hillside as soon as possible in order to get them out of the fighting compartment."

One wonders of course if, in Falluja, WP was used more directly to kill insurgents and not just to flush them out. In battle, soldiers take short cuts and this seems an obvious one.

Evidence that this happened in Falluja comes from an article by a reporter, Darrin Mortenson of the North County Times in California, who was embedded with US marines there.

He wrote about a mortar unit receiving coordinates of a target and opening fire:

"The boom kicked the dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call 'shake 'n bake' into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."

The tactic therefore seems to have been not to flush them out first but to bombard them simultaneously with the two types of weapons.

THE DEBATE ABOUT WP CENTRES PARTLY THOUGH NOT WHOLLY ON WHETHER IT IS REALLY A CHEMICAL WEAPON. SUCH WEAPONS ARE OUTLAWED BY THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC) TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY. "

Even if it is NOT classified as a Chemical weapon the debate continues..................

White phosphorus: weapon on the edge

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:45 AM

To break down the analysis by Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News ......
ref as above

WP - THE ARGUMENTS

So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that "a certain way" can easily be defined, if at all.

The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited.

Critics claim that the US used chemical weapons in Falluja, on the grounds that it is the toxic properties which cause the harm. The UK's Guardian newspaper for example said: "The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it."

There is an intense debate on the blog sites about this issue. "It's not a chemical weapon" says Liberal Against Terror. "CONFIRMED: WP is a CW if used to cause harm through toxic properties," says Daily Kos.

Update 22 November: I have received an e-mail from a reader who points me to a reported US army document from 1991** which refers to WP as a chemical weapon. The document reports the possible use of WP by Iraq against the Kurds who rose up after the Gulf War. It says: "Iraq has possibly employed phosphorous chemical weapons against the Kurdish population."

The reader said this was proof that the US viewed WP as a CW.

I have also been contacted by Gabriele Zamparini of the Cat's Dream blog who appears to have published this document first. He makes the same point that the US Defense Department itself called WP a "chemical weapon." I offer these comments as part of the debate "

** the document I quoted from in a previous post


TACTICAL USE OF WP

The other argument is about the use of WP as a weapon.

The initial denials from the Pentagon suggest a certain hesitation, embarrassment even, about such a tactic. Some decisions must have been taken in the past to limit its use in certain battlefield scenarios (urban warfare for example). It is not used against civilians.

However the United States has not signed up to a convention covering incendiary weapons which seeks to restrict their use.

This convention has the cumbersome title "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." Agreed in 1980, its Protocol III covers "Prohibitions or Restrictions on use of Incendiary Weapons."

This prohibits WP or other incendiaries (like flamethrowers) against civilians or civilian objects and its use by air strikes against military targets located in a concentration of civilians. It also limits WP use by other means (such as mortars or direct fire from tanks) against military targets in a civilian area. Such targets have to be separated from civilian concentrations and "all feasible precautions" taken to avoid civilian casualties.

Notwithstanding the US position on the Convention, the use of WP against insurgents within Falluja does at least bring the issue into discussion, though one should note that the soldiers who wrote the Field Artillery article do say that their unit "encountered few civilians in its attack south".

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:08 AM

Emma, WP smoke is a war fighting munition.
WP can be used in anti personel weapons, but armies of democratic countries only use it in smoke and illuminant munitions.
These are dangerous but not in comparison to munitions designed to cause casualties.
Do I need to say again that I deplored its use here and said it might have been illegal?

Jim, I have not backpedalled or changed my argument at all.
All I ever challenged you on was that Israel did not use chemical weapons.
Do you now accept that I, and Emma, were right about that and you were wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:52 AM

"but armies of democratic countries only use it in smoke and illuminant munitions."

Armies of those countries who are signatories to the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." agreed in 1980, which covers "Prohibitions or Restrictions on use of Incendiary Weapons." have agreed to be restricted in their use of incendiary weapons

Neither the United States or Israel have ratified Protocol III on Incendiary Weapons, Protocol IV on Blinding Lasers, and Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War.
Neither have approved an amendment that extends the convention's application beyond just interstate conflicts to intrastate conflicts.

Israel has signed, but not ratified, the Chemical Weapons Convention; it has not signed the Biological Weapons Convention


Keith, the Pentagon has admitted to the use of WP incendiary weapons in Iraq against insurgents on the basis that their use against military targets is not prohibited.

'Pentagon spokesman Lt-Col Barry Venable said this week that WP had been used, "to fire at the enemy" in Iraq. "It burns... it's an incendiary weapon. That is what it does." '
The Independent 17 November 2005

From the Israeli newspaper Haaretz 22.10.06

"Israel has acknowledged for the first time that it attacked Hezbollah targets during the second Lebanon war with phosphorus shells.
White phosphorus causes very painful and often lethal chemical burns to those hit by it, and until recently Israel maintained that it only uses such bombs to mark targets or territory.

Some experts believe that phosphorus munitions should be termed Chemical Weapons (CW) because of the way the weapons burn and attack the respiratory system. As a CW, phosphorus would become a clearly illegal weapon.

The International Red Cross is of the opinion that there should be a complete ban on phosphorus being used against human beings and the third protocol of the Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons restricts the use of "incendiary weapons," with phosphorus considered to be one such weapon.

Israel and the United States are not signatories to the Third Protocol.

In November 2004 the U.S. Army used phosphorus munitions during an offensive in Faluja, Iraq. Burned bodies of civilians hit by the phosphorus munitions were shown by the press, and an international outcry against the practice followed."

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:21 AM

Thanks Emma.
The British Army only uses WP smoke and illuminant.
I knew USA had got rid of its napalm, so it is odd if they have kept WP anti personel ammunition.

I only wanted to clear up the issue of whether chemical weapons were used in the incursion.
They were not.
Jim was wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:25 AM

"All I ever challenged you on was that Israel did not use chemical weapons."
Er no, you suggested there were two types and that the Israelis were using the safe ones; you also said that you got your information from a press report "like everybody else" - want me to drag it down for you or can you find it yourself?
"Jim was wrong again."
"On March 25, 2009, USA Based Human Rights Organization Human Rights Watch published a 71 page report titled Rain of Fire, Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza and said that Israel's usage of the weapon was illegal."
Amazing stuff this phophorus - in Gaza it is a smoke bomb - in Fallujah, it is a weapon, but it is ok to use it as was a battle situation - in the hands of Saddam Hussain it was a war crime serious enough to be one of the reasons for invading Iraq.
Can you buy it at Woolworths?   
Whatever it is it maims and burns and is capable of killing, which makes Israelis' use of it on civilians a war crime.
Doesn't the use of this shit on civilians bother you at all or have you got your head shoved so far up Israel's arse that it doesn't effect you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:31 AM

Or perhaps you would prefer it from the Horse's Mouth; From the American Magnes Zionist:
Jim Carroll

Last summer I published a post in which I charted the different stages of Israel's cover-up of the illegal use of white phosphorus in the Gaza Op. You can read about it here. First, there was total denial of use; then the IDF admitted use but claimed that it was legal. When Breaking the Silence published clear testimonies of its illegal use, together with the physical evidence and testimonies of the Gazans, the response was to shoot the messenger.
Well, now, ribono shel olam, Israel has finally admitted to illegal use of white phosphorus in the Gaza Campaign in its reply to the Goldstone Report. We are even told what officers gave the commands, and that they were "reprimanded."
How many chances does the IDF get to change its story before people stop taking it seriously? And at each stage the Hasbara moonies parrot whatever happens to be the current version!
Will somebody explain to me why anybody should give any credence to what the IDF spokesperson says – even if it happens to be true?
By the way, there is evidence that there were other cases of use of white phosphorus besides the one referred to here

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:00 AM

Jim, there are 3 main kinds of WP munitions.
Incendiary/anti personel, smoke and illuminating.
That is what i was referring to, and that has been made clear throughout this thread.
Are you clear on that now?
I said I saw the news video like everyone else, and recognised it as smoke.
You should have dragged it down jim.

I never suggested smoke was harmless. In fact I said all along that it should not have been used and may have been illegal.
Drag that down too Jim.
And you said from the beginning of your latest reopening that it was a chemical weapons attack, and I refuted it form the beginning.
And Emma and I were right about that, and you were wrong again Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:37 AM

"Incendiary/anti personel, smoke and illuminating."
Funny you should say that - the article I just pasted gives a link to a Haretz article containing a photograph of phosphorus pieces raining down on houses in Gaza - wonder where they got that one.
The above definition from Wiki shows that there is one type of white phosphorus which has the effect of burning, maiming and possibly killing which is also used to produce smoke.
But don't let facts get in the way of your defending your war criminal friends.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:47 AM

"The above definition from Wiki shows that there is one type of white phosphorus "
There is one type of WP from which different types of device can be made.
Give it up jim.
You were wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:33 AM

In the interest of balance, Human Rights Watch state that those who launch the rockets from Gaza into Israel, and those who give the orders, are guilty of war crimes.
That does not excuse israel if its actions are shown to be illegal, but it needs to be said.
You Jim refused over and over again to say that those war crimes were wrong, or that they should stop.
Every little (death) helps was what you said.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:49 AM

White Phosphorous as a weapon Gaza CNN News

"WP munitions are very common -- particularly as smoke grenades for infantry; loaded in defensive grenade dischargers on tanks and other armored vehicles; or as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars.

However, white phosphorus has a secondary effect.

While much less efficient than ordinary fragmentation effects in causing casualties, white phosphorus burns quite fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire.

It also can function as an anti-personnel weapon with the compound capable of causing serious burns or death.

The agent is used in bombs, artillery, and mortars, short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact.

White phosphorus is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP". The slang term "Willy(ie) Pete" or "Willy(ie) Peter", dating from World War I and common at least through the Vietnam War, is still occasionally heard.

White phosphorus weapons are controversial today because of their potential use against civilians.

While the Chemical Weapons Convention does not designate WP as a chemical weapon, various groups consider it to be one.

In recent years, the United States, Israel, and Russia have used white phosphorus in combat"

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 12:31 PM

Jim, Jim, Jim...

You are now playing with words - The IRON rods the "peacefull protestors attacked the IDF with were CHEMICAL ( made of chemicals) - They can severely damage and can kill .

It is a war crime to use it on IDF forces and the Palestinians have used it in such a manner; therefore, whatever word games you are now attempting to play, the Palestinians are war criminals.

The use of random mass area bombardment anti-personnel rockets are a violaytion of the Geneva conventions, and the Israeli incurance was to stop those war crimes from continuing. I will take your protests to mean that you do not approve of actions to stop war crimes.

Unless of course you think Jews are not human enough to get the same protection under law that you want the Palestinians to have. Then your statments make sense- that Jews cannot under any circumstances defend themselves, and their attackers ( in a state of war NOT of Israel's choosing) should have the protection of the laws that you will not give the Israelis.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:35 PM

"Every little (death) helps was what you said."
Don't put words into my mouth again
Every little effort to remove the fascist invader will do nicely.
Phosphorus spraying down on civilians is chemical warfare and is a war crime, attempting to eject armed invaders with whatever comes to hand is not.
I can't help but notice that nobody has addressed the fact that Israel is commiting war crimes and is backing out of the UN evquiry on human rights.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:51 PM

"attempting to eject armed invaders with whatever comes to hand is not."

So the Israelis are entitled to use anything they wish on those who attack them, within the area of Mandate Palestine ( as accepted by the Arabs in 1923)?


YES OR NO:

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:17 PM

Jim, regarding the rocket attacks against Israeli civillians you said,
"Every little effort to remove the fascist invader will do nicely."

You are condoning war crimes by one side while raging about possibly illegal actions by the other.

Can you not see why I felt the need to inject a little balance?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:57 PM

BTW, the 1923 borders ( the last accepted by the Arabs) were the ones for the Jewish Homeland AFTER 77% of the Mandate was given to the Arabs, and Jews forbidden from settling there. So, it was the 23% of the Mandate that was supposed to be the Jewish Homeland. The Arabs accepted those borders in 1923, but wanted the entire region in 1948 and attacked the new state of Israel.

So the Israelis are entitled to use any weapons they wish on the invaders, on the West Bank and in Gaza.

Glad you admit that the Palestinians should ALL pack up and move to the ARAB homeland of Jordan, to allow for peace in the region.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:45 PM

"So the Israelis are entitled to use anything they wish on those who attack them,"
Am I mistaken in believing that phosporus is a forbidden substance for use where non combatants are likely to be affected, whereas iron bars are not?
There is something very sad about the fact that the most persecuted people in the world have produced a group of persecutors who have taken up many of the practices of their persecutors for their own use. But there is something pathetic aout their hangers-on-from afar running around like headless chickens trying to prove what is and what is not a chemical weapon not ulike the jarveys her who now have to run behind their horses sweeping up the shit.
"You are condoning war crimes by one side while raging about possibly illegal actions by the other."
The invaded are entitled to take action against the invader, especially those who behave like fascist thugs.
Still no comment on war crimes and failure to co-operate with the UN enquiry - ah well, at least Keithie has somebody to do his thinking for him again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:50 PM

"The invaded are entitled to take action against the invader, especially those who behave like fascist thugs.
"

So you agree the Israelis can do whatever they like, according to your standards for the Palestinians?

YES OR NO:

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 04:20 PM

Apart from the fact that (as ludicrous as it sounds) 'civilised' nations have surrounded themselves with a set of rules in which to regulate behaviour in war - which the Israelis have exceeded - making themselves war criminals, no, I don't believe that Palestinian civilians are a legitimate target for Israeli brutality.
I believe the Israelis have committed war crimes and I also believe that they know it, hence their refusal to co-operate with a UN independent enquiry.
Once again they are insisting that they will give themselves a 'fair trial' and find themselves 'not guilty' no doubt.
As I said - fascist thugs (with somewwhat pathetic hangers-on).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 04:39 PM

Jim,

You have not answered the question- do you stand behind your statement that "The invaded are entitled to take action against the invader, especially those who behave like fascist thugs. "

Or do you only let Arabs have that right, and deny it to Jews??


YES OR NO:

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:56 PM

"Or do you only let Arabs have that right, and deny it to Jews?
Don't you mean Israelis - it is they who are committing the war crimes, not the Jewish people.
In terms of this discussion, the Israelis are the agressors and their treatment of civilians places them beyond having any rights; would you argue the same right for the Third Reich?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:08 PM

Bruce the 20th C history of the Middle East is very complex and the British and French have a lot to answer for but - I don't think the resident Arab population of the area that includes Gaza and the West Bank could by any description, or stretch of the imagination, be called 'invaders' although many are the children of refugees.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:14 PM

The statements by Palestinians is anti-Jewish. It seems you forgot to remind them of a difference.

The entire area that has been given to those refugees was a part of the Mandate Palestine intended to be a Jewish Homeland- the invasion by Arabs was in 1948, and that war has not yet been completely resolved.

To blame the Israelis for defending themselves is a bigotted viewpoint- LOOK at what thee Arabs did to those areas they had control over from 1948 until 1967- and tell me that the Israelis do not treat Palestinians better than the Arabs treated Jews, or even those Palestinian Refugees.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:08 PM

"The statements by Palestinians is anti-Jewish"

True - as is the reverse:

"The statements by Jewish elements is anti-Palestinian"

QUOTE
The typical pure intellectual fanatic position(s). Held identically by their Opposition who also wish to have an equivalent state.

Pragmatists realise this blind pigheaded madness ends only in death and destruction on both sides.

But the narrow minded fanatics on both sides use the resultant carnage against them to incite more hatred for their opponents and increase the carnage they inflict on their opponents,

Ireland would still be war torn if both sides had not moved away from this sort of rigid position of stupidity.

UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:28 AM

As Emma B rightly points out - the Israeli-Palestine question is a complicated one, far too complicated to be satisfactorily disscussed here - certainly by me.
What is not in question is Israel's brutal behavior; the act of piracy, the slaughter of refugees, the use of weapons, chemical or otherwise, on civilians, the destruction of homes, hospitals and schools, the open attempts at humiliation and persecution of the ordinary citizens of Gaza, the failure of the Israelis to meet the basic standards of conflict agreed upon so that humanity does not descend into bestiality and its refusal to even participate, never mind adher to the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee investgation.
That issue is ongoing, with more examples every day - stories that could have been ripped out of the pages of Martin Gilbert's oral history, 'Holocaust', the parellels are so obvious.
It is this that the Israeli apologists have totally failed to address and continue to ignore - their deafening silence says it all far more eloquently than any of us possibly could.
Jim Carroll