• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Have Israel used chemical weapons???

White phosphorus is not classified as a non-conventional weapon. It is used by the majority of advanced countries in the world, including the US, to light up fields or create smokescreens for engaging forces. Israel has not used it to "murder civilians" nor did it deliberately target any civilians at all during the 2009 Gaza campaign.
 
A protocol to the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons bans the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.
 
There are lots of inconsistencies and just plain hypocrisy in international relations on all sides. Israel is one of a handful of nations that has not signed on to the international ban on the use of chemical weapons but the west doesn't criticize them for it. In addition, from what I've seen lately, the three leading nations in stocks of chemical weapons are considered to be the US, Russia, and then Syria.

Isn't it somewhat odd that the US and Russia are now negotiating to take control and destroy all of Syria's chemical weapons? One could argue that the US and Russia hasn't used these weapons to kill civilians or even combatants in a war, but then we really don't know what Russia has done over the years or inside it's own country. And if the use of the weapons not the holding of the weapons is the crime, why doesn't this same standard hold for nuclear weapons? After all, the US is the only nation that has actually used such a destructive weapon and all other nations who have them seem to hold them as a deterent against attack.

This is simply the hypocrisy of power geopolitics - he with the biggest and most guns can demand behavioural changes in others. This is not to say that what's going on in Syria isn't disgraceful, just that it's understandable why those that aren't powers in the west are distrustful of the motives and actions of those powers in the west.
 
A protocol to the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons bans the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.

The Israeli military says it is to stop using artillery shells with white phosphorus to create smokescreens on the battlefield.
This is allowed activity.
 
I was saying the other day that I don't agree with the use of WP in civilian areas, but that doesn't make it a chemical weapon.
 
The injuries white phosphorus inflicts are terrible, however you describe it.
 
There's nothing white phosphorous can do that a bomb cannot. I see no reason for Israel to employ it instead of bombs, except in attempt to provide concealment.
 
There's nothing white phosphorous can do that a bomb cannot. I see no reason for Israel to employ it instead of bombs, except in attempt to provide concealment.

I don't know what the outrage is about..America has used chemical weapons incessantly...

So it must be OK for you to use them??
 
The injuries white phosphorus inflicts are terrible, however you describe it.

Regular bombs are way more terrible and lethal. Bullets are too. War is terrible.
 
I don't know what the outrage is about..America has used chemical weapons incessantly...

So it must be OK for you to use them??

That's fundie muzzie nonsense. I can't believe someone would try to excuse chemical genocide on the grounds that the US does it "incessantly".

I find it amusing that some people completely discount Saddam's past and pretend a utopia would exist in Iraq if not for the US and, at the same time, pretend that ancient history in the US is evidence of policy today.
 
Last edited:
That's fundie muzzie nonsense. I can't believe someone would try to excuse chemical genocide on the grounds that the US does it "incessantly".

I find it amusing that some people completely discount Saddam's past and pretend a utopia would exist in Iraq if not for the US and, at the same time, pretend that ancient history in the US is evidence of policy today.

Look at the proof..we invaded these countries..the result is teetering on a global war ..

We haven't won anything..we've lost!!
 
Look at the proof..we invaded these countries..the result is teetering on a global war ..

Yet you refuse to consider Saddam's history and instead substitute a fantasy utopia as the alternative. That's disconnected and contradicts your narrative about the US.
 
I think the reason the chemical weapons are considered worse is because they are not as accurate as our bombs are. Also, the wind or certain elements can carry these poisons and just by breathing, people you have no intention of killing can die too. Does that make sense?
 
Yet you refuse to consider Saddam's history and instead substitute a fantasy utopia as the alternative. That's disconnected and contradicts your narrative about the US.

I know it's an awful thing to say..but he kept them in check..

What the hell is happening in Syria??

I have visited Tunisia since the '' Arab spring''..you won't believe what's going on over there!!
 
I know it's an awful thing to say..but he kept them in check..

He killed 1,000,000 Iraqis over 20 years (just counting the big stuff), 50k per year.

Yet, you don't have a problem with that?

What the hell is happening in Syria??

You've no idea, do you.

I have visited Tunisia since the '' Arab spring''..you won't believe what's going on over there!!

I am not impressed by tourism-based arguments.
 
He killed 1,000,000 Iraqis over 20 years (just counting the big stuff), 50k per year.

Yet, you don't have a problem with that?



You've no idea, do you.



I am not impressed by tourism-based arguments.

Of course you are not interested in ''tourist based observations''..you have never been there!!

As far as Syria is concerned..I have a great idea..let's keep our mother humping noses out of it!!!
 
Of course you are not interested in ''tourist based observations''..you have never been there!!

Claiming to have been somewhere does not make ones position credible. Tourism means nothing. I lived in Europe and Africa, for years.

Tourism arguments are inherently deeply flawed. They amount to hearsay of engineered propaganda.


As far as Syria is concerned..I have a great idea..let's keep our mother humping noses out of it!!!

You think that's your idea?

ps. "mother humping noses"? Sounds personal.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom