Looks like the threat of Palestinian children is full on now

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
You do realize that international law only allows WP to be used as a smoke screen in unpopulated areas right? Using WP around civilians is and has been illegal. The canisters have been found and Israel is going to have to deal with this "issue".

Such a version of "international law" is highly debatable in its legitimacy. The treaty involved with banning using WP in anything but unpopulated areas has not been signed by many countries include both the US and Israel.

The treaties regarding conduct and behavior in war that Israel and the US have signed INDISPUTABLY ALLOW the use of WP in populated areas if its as a smokescreen. At best you can question its specific employment and whether Israel should have been more careful in its use, but finding canisters proves absolutely nothing particularly relevant.

Sarin was intended to maintain shower facilities rat-free.

Wake the fuck up.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: fallout man
Sarin was intended to maintain shower facilities rat-free.

Wake the fuck up.

Indeed you should and stop your outrageous statements.

Here is a link to a quoted statement from the Red Cross that they believe Israel's use of WP in Gaza is legal.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S...2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

In fact upon further review from Wikipedia, it doesn't look like use of WP is actually outright banned in populated areas even with the treaty the US and Israel among other countries have not signed, its just some groups misstating the details of the treaty and international law.

The fact of the matter is White Phosphorous is very clearly the best practical way to produce a smoke screen with munitions. Your comparison is simply a stupid one which is exceptionally offensive by any standard.

Edit: If you look at the Wikipedia link, the reality is White Phosphorous smoke is really not that harmful unless exposed to exceptionally rather large concentrations, making it actually a quite lousy actual chemical weapon for the record. (Unless you're shooting it into a cave or something you're clearly better off firing regular artillery shells to actually kill people. It has incendiary effects, but there are other ways to do the same thing.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If we can have a Darwin award for the most clever way to remove somebody from the gene pool, lets now award Aereon the first Orwell award for double standards after ,"By contrast. Hamas shooting such a round into the Negev given the current situation and posture could not possibly be a legitimate use of a smoke screen, so their intent in its use was clearly in an illegal manner designed solely to harm Israelis with the round."

As if Israeli tanks in Gaza, basically invincible, really needed smokescreens to hide from Palestinians throwing rocks and bottles.

Indeed you should win an Orwell award for you support of Hamas.

The reality is there is no dispute Hamas has plenty of armament they have smuggled through the tunnel into Gaza over the years, not just including a large amount of rockets, but also both small arms AND quite a bit of anti-tank weaponry which can pose a legitimate threat to Israeli tanks. There are also situations where Israeli soldiers dismount from armored vehicles in which they certainly are vulnerable to small arms fire, so a smoke screen as protection in that situation can well be appropriate. The only reason anyone would be throwing rocks in the current situation would be purely for propaganda purposes. (Most likely purely posing for a camera when Israeli troops actually are not in the area.)

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: fallout man
Sarin was intended to maintain shower facilities rat-free.

Wake the fuck up.

Indeed you should and stop your outrageous statements.

Here is a link to a quoted statement from the Red Cross that they believe Israel's use of WP in Gaza is legal.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S...2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

In fact upon further review from Wikipedia, it doesn't look like use of WP is actually outright banned in populated areas even with the treaty the US and Israel among other countries have not signed, its just some groups misstating the details of the treaty and international law.

The fact of the matter is White Phosphorous is very clearly the best practical way to produce a smoke screen with munitions. Your comparison is simply a stupid one which is exceptionally offensive by any standard.

Edit: If you look at the Wikipedia link, the reality is White Phosphorous smoke is really not that harmful unless exposed to exceptionally rather large concentrations, making it actually a quite lousy actual chemical weapon for the record. (Unless you're shooting it into a cave or something you're clearly better off firing regular artillery shells to actually kill people. It has incendiary effects, but there are other ways to do the same thing.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)

Oh, OK.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Aegeon
Edit: If you look at the Wikipedia link, the reality is White Phosphorous smoke is really not that harmful unless exposed to exceptionally rather large concentrations, making it actually a quite lousy actual chemical weapon for the record. (Unless you're shooting it into a cave or something you're clearly better off firing regular artillery shells to actually kill people. It has incendiary effects, but there are other ways to do the same thing.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)

The smoke is not the reason for the ban. the reason for the ban is it is almost impossible to put it out. It ends up burning homes and if it come in contact with skin you will have beyond 3rd degree burns (it will burn down to and including bone).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...II:_Incendiary_Weapons



http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NO...2003FD28B?OpenDocument

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/We...n?ReadForm&id=500&ps=P

why do you waist my time refuting your lack of facts?


Ratification / Accession march 23 1995

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: Zebo
Really a not a mystery why these 'children' are getting shot. Hamas trains them to be killers instead of children.
http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/...0w%20AK46%20rifles.jpg
http://bokertov.typepad.com/bt..._burn_israeli_flag.jpg
http://washingtonbureau.typepa...7/08/13/hamaschild.jpg
http://www.usvetdsp.com/kids_guns.jpg

It's a good thing that the IDF has a good grip on the situation.

Text

What's he got in his hand?

Quoted for ROFLness. Yeah that toddler is clearly a mortal threat.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Such a version of "international law" is highly debatable in its legitimacy. The treaty involved with banning using WP in anything but unpopulated areas has not been signed by many countries include both the US and Israel.

The treaties regarding conduct and behavior in war that Israel and the US have signed INDISPUTABLY ALLOW the use of WP in populated areas if its as a smokescreen. At best you can question its specific employment and whether Israel should have been more careful in its use, but finding canisters proves absolutely nothing particularly relevant.

This is all wrong see my post above. Thank you.

 

[JSt0rm]

ohh look he left lol whatever. the human race is doomed.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Aegeon
Edit: If you look at the Wikipedia link, the reality is White Phosphorous smoke is really not that harmful unless exposed to exceptionally rather large concentrations, making it actually a quite lousy actual chemical weapon for the record. (Unless you're shooting it into a cave or something you're clearly better off firing regular artillery shells to actually kill people. It has incendiary effects, but there are other ways to do the same thing.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)

The smoke is not the reason for the ban. the reason for the ban is it is almost impossible to put it out. It ends up burning homes and if it come in contact with skin you will have beyond 3rd degree burns (it will burn down to and including bone).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...II:_Incendiary_Weapons



http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NO...2003FD28B?OpenDocument

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/We...n?ReadForm&id=500&ps=P

why do you waist my time refuting your lack of facts?


Ratification / Accession march 23 1995

IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT THE SECTION SAYS, it only says its against the rules to use the weapon in such a way if it PRIMARILY designed when used in that way to set fire to civilian buildings objects or harm people. So you actually established the use is LEGAL as long as its intended use is as a smokescreen of some sort or to mark a target, even if it can be harmful with incendiary effects.

In other words if ACTUALLY LOOK at your links, you basically CLEARLY ESTABLISHED ITS LEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW to use WP as long as its primary purpose is for a smokescreen or to mark a target. The only specific question would be what happened in each example of its use and possibly if a building is still considered civilian if currently being used by an enemy force as a location to fire weaponry from. (Remember by the way that artillery shells can certainly end up missing their targets in some cases.)

 

[ZzZGuy]

Going right back to the OP, I hope the doctors that removed those bullets kept them for ballistic analysis to see who shot those bullets even though it'll be easy for either side to claim the results are fake.

Two big questions I have right now is wither hamas was using children as human shields and/or child soldiers. The percentage of children killed sounds very odd and one side I'm sure caused it deliberately.

In a few months time we'll find out the truth of what went on in gaza, what is real and what out right lies. Too many horrific stories that we have to take someones word for without any kind of verification, hamas/palis lie and Israel is playing the propaganda game.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Aegeon
IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT THE SECTION SAYS, it only says its against the rules to use the weapon in such a way if it PRIMARILY designed when used in that way to set fire to civilian buildings objects or harm people. So you actually established the use is LEGAL as long as its intended use is as a smokescreen of some sort or to mark a target, even if it can be harmful with incendiary effects.

In other words if ACTUALLY LOOK at your links, you basically CLEARLY ESTABLISHED ITS LEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW to use WP as long as its primary purpose is for a smokescreen or to mark a target. The only specific question would be what happened in each example of its use and possibly if a building is still considered civilian if currently being used by an enemy force as a location to fire weaponry from. (Remember by the way that artillery shells can certainly end up missing their targets in some cases.)

Show me where in that link it establishes that isreal can use wp? You alos said that isreal wasn't apart of this treaty when they clearly are. I mean if you want to argue the meaning of a sentence I'm not going to go there with you. You have already spewed misinformation.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Show me where in that link it establishes that isreal can use wp? You alos said that isreal wasn't apart of this treaty when they clearly are. I mean if you want to argue the meaning of a sentence I'm not going to go there with you. You have already spewed misinformation.

You can start with the opinion of the Red Cross on the matter, you can google it beyond the link to the news story I already posted. You can also read you own Wikipedia link again.

You DIDN'T do enough research on the subject before posting again.

There are MULTIPLE PROTOCOLS in the treaty, and countries only had to agree to abide by two of the five, such as the US and Israel, to be considered a signatory to it. (The section you linked to regarding Israel involved the use of mines.)

However Israel DEFINITELY DID NOT, agree to Protocol 3, which means they can't be considered legally bound by the section in question as noted here among other sources.
http://ambafrance-uk.org/Daily...by-Ministry,14279.html

You can find numerous other references to this detail online. While France expressed their concern about the situation, they effective acknowledged Israel legally appeared to be in the clear since the chemical weapons treaty usually wouldn't apply since WP is actually considered as dangerous as smoke from an oil fire in the same concentration if you look at the Wikipedia link on WP again.

Its true I was slightly incorrect in that Israel had signed the general treaty, but they had definitely only agreed to other sections and not the one which would apply to the use of WP in this case.

 

[ZzZGuy]

With regards to WP smoke shell, lets for a moment put aside the legal question to ask another question.

What harmful effect will a WP shell on a human body (lets assume they are standing in the center of the burst) and can it ignite combustible material on the ground?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen

Another type of smoke grenades are those which burst. These are filled with white phosphorus (WP), which is spread by explosive action. The phosphorus catches fire in the presence of air, and burns with a brilliant yellow flame, while producing copious amounts of white smoke (phosphorus pentoxide).

Red phosphorus and white phosphorus (WP) are red or waxy yellow or white substances. White phosphorus is pyrophoric - can be handled safely when under water, but in contact with air it spontaneously ignites. It is used as an incendiary. Both types of phosphorus are used for smoke generation, mostly in artillery shells, bombs, and grenades.

White phosphorus smoke is typically very hot and may cause burns on contact. Red phosphorus is less reactive, does not ignite spontaneously, and its smoke does not cause thermal burns - for this reason it is safer to handle, but cannot be used so easily as an incendiary.

I'm having trouble finding useful info, the question here seems to be just how intensely does the WP burn in smoke rounds? Is it shooting your friend with a roman candle (fireworks) intense or "Oh god, my skin is on fire!" intense?

Another questing would be if red phosphorous would make a effect smoke shell, and if so why isn't Israel using it if WP smoke shells are harmful to people.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Aegeon
However Israel DEFINITELY DID NOT, agree to Protocol 3, which means they can't be considered legally bound by the section in question as noted here among other sources.
http://ambafrance-uk.org/Daily...by-Ministry,14279.html

I concede this point. From a pr point of view this thing is a disaster for Israel though.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
With regards to WP smoke shell, lets for a moment put aside the legal question to ask another question.

What harmful effect will a WP shell on a human body (lets assume they are standing in the center of the burst) and can it ignite combustible material on the ground?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen

Another type of smoke grenades are those which burst. These are filled with white phosphorus (WP), which is spread by explosive action. The phosphorus catches fire in the presence of air, and burns with a brilliant yellow flame, while producing copious amounts of white smoke (phosphorus pentoxide).

Red phosphorus and white phosphorus (WP) are red or waxy yellow or white substances. White phosphorus is pyrophoric - can be handled safely when under water, but in contact with air it spontaneously ignites. It is used as an incendiary. Both types of phosphorus are used for smoke generation, mostly in artillery shells, bombs, and grenades.

White phosphorus smoke is typically very hot and may cause burns on contact. Red phosphorus is less reactive, does not ignite spontaneously, and its smoke does not cause thermal burns - for this reason it is safer to handle, but cannot be used so easily as an incendiary.

I'm having trouble finding useful info, the question here seems to be just how intensely does the WP burn in smoke rounds? Is it shooting your friend with a roman candle (fireworks) intense or "Oh god, my skin is on fire!" intense?

Another questing would be if red phosphorous would make a effect smoke shell, and if so why isn't Israel using it if WP smoke shells are harmful to people.

WP ignites and burns at around body temperature until it exhausts itself. It will burn at roughly 3000'C through flesh and bone, as long as it has a supply of oxygen.

WP rounds that are dispersed in dry air amount to a traveliing chemical weapon cloud. When you breathe in the smoke/powder from a WP shell, you essentially burn from inside-out, as WP powder sticks to your airway and your lungs, reacts with oxygen, and ignites.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
With regards to WP smoke shell, lets for a moment put aside the legal question to ask another question.

What harmful effect will a WP shell on a human body (lets assume they are standing in the center of the burst) and can it ignite combustible material on the ground?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen

Another type of smoke grenades are those which burst. These are filled with white phosphorus (WP), which is spread by explosive action. The phosphorus catches fire in the presence of air, and burns with a brilliant yellow flame, while producing copious amounts of white smoke (phosphorus pentoxide).

Red phosphorus and white phosphorus (WP) are red or waxy yellow or white substances. White phosphorus is pyrophoric - can be handled safely when under water, but in contact with air it spontaneously ignites. It is used as an incendiary. Both types of phosphorus are used for smoke generation, mostly in artillery shells, bombs, and grenades.

White phosphorus smoke is typically very hot and may cause burns on contact. Red phosphorus is less reactive, does not ignite spontaneously, and its smoke does not cause thermal burns - for this reason it is safer to handle, but cannot be used so easily as an incendiary.

I'm having trouble finding useful info, the question here seems to be just how intensely does the WP burn in smoke rounds? Is it shooting your friend with a roman candle (fireworks) intense or "Oh god, my skin is on fire!" intense?

Another questing would be if red phosphorous would make a effect smoke shell, and if so why isn't Israel using it if WP smoke shells are harmful to people.

WP ignites and burns at around body temperature until it exhausts itself. It will burn at roughly 3000'C through flesh and bone, as long as it has a supply of oxygen.

WP rounds that are dispersed in dry air amount to a traveliing chemical weapon cloud. When you breathe in the smoke/powder from a WP shell, you essentially burn from inside-out, as WP powder sticks to your airway and your lungs, reacts with oxygen, and ignites.

Doesn't answer my question. What effect does a WP smoke shell have on the human body?

If you consider there to be no difference between incendiary and smoke WP shells then please provide a reference for that info.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: Zebo
Really a not a mystery why these 'children' are getting shot. Hamas trains them to be killers instead of children.
http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/...0w%20AK46%20rifles.jpg
http://bokertov.typepad.com/bt..._burn_israeli_flag.jpg
http://washingtonbureau.typepa...7/08/13/hamaschild.jpg
http://www.usvetdsp.com/kids_guns.jpg

It's a good thing that the IDF has a good grip on the situation.

Text

You've obviously never seen a kid with a grenade in his hand.

I have.

Until the kid is determined harmless, any soldier is 100% justified in aiming at the potential threat.

Perhaps you didn't know this either: using women and children as human bombs and shields is a standard tactic employed by terrorists all over the world -- one that Hamas itself has certainly perfected over the years.

Welcome to The War Against Terrorists 101... it's a bitch.