Israel's (Possible) Use of Phosphorous

Is it OK, in your opinion, for the IDF to use phosphorous or other chemical weapons on a target if it is confirmed Hezbollah militants are there along with civilians, and phosphorous is the most effective weapon?

Joby said:

Is it OK, in your opinion, for the IDF to use phosphorous or other chemical weapons on a target if it is confirmed Hezbollah militants are there along with civilians, and phosphorous is the most effective weapon?

Click to expand...

So, you already decided that Israel is using phosphorous and right away you did a poll about that?

I didn't make an option in this poll cause I think it's nonsence.

Israel is using phosphorous in the same way that Jews are making Mazzots of the blood of little Christian children.

For one thing I can be sure of. If Hizbullah had phosphorous bombs he wouldn't hesitate to drop them on the north of Israel.

And I'm sure you wouldn't do a poll about the justification of bombing Israel with phosphorous bombs by Hizbullah

Joby said:

In You Opinion, is it Acceptable for Israel to use Phosphorous?

Click to expand...

I support Israel’s right to use any and all means/weapons necessary, without exception, to ensure their survival.

"The IDF's use of weapons and ammunition conforms to international law. The specific claims are being checked based on the information provided to us," the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) said in a statement sent to IRIN.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/9bf47d453b7612c2f40bc3f75044ceb6.htm

"Israel is not a party to Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGMDE150702006


My opinion is that they should not use it. White Phosporus is a particularly nasty chemical weapon. It is pyrophoric and will continue to burn all the way down to the bone. What's worse, the phosphorus itself will poison the victim and cause organ failure. This is not a weapon worthy of a civilized culture such as Israel.

Hezbollah has insinuated itself deeply into the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. This is a deliberate and cowardly tactic in complete violation of the Geneva Convention. Both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government bear the responsibility for the current war. Hezbollah's strategy is to hide among civilians and force Israel into attacking where collateral damage is likely. Most of the civilian injuries on the Lebanese side are the fault of Hezbollah, because they give Israel no choice. Not to mention the numerous direct rocket attacks against civilians in Israeli cities.

The paradox is that Israel has a responsibility to conform to rules of honorable warfare. Even though they are dealing with the scum of the earth, they must use restraint. I don't think phosporus bombing in civilian areas is consistent with that.

Note that I am not suggesting the allegations are true or not, just answering the original question.

It's a chemical weapon.
Only folks like Saddam (Halabja) & the USA (Napalm in Vietnam) use chemical weapons. Double standards eh ?
As for only accidently killing civilians. The Israelis deliberately kiiled those UN guys. Right now I'm well pi55ed of with Israel.
Even Ratman Miladic didn't kill the UN guys at Srebrinitza.

I support Israel’s right to use any and all means/weapons necessary, without exception, to ensure their survival.

Click to expand...

So you fine with nukes and bio weapons and other forms of WMD? Great double standard there...

Wasn't white Phosphorous banned completely by the UN, geneva convention, and NATO. No, Israel should try to play by the rules as best as they can. Also, with the amount of civilians deaths, white phosphorous is not logical.

"Hey, why don't we drop some white Phosphorous on that small town."

BOOM!

"Oh, wait all I see is flamming women and children"

The US used it in Falalla, knowing that civilians remained in the city. IIRC, that is the primary restriction of the use of WP.

Pen said:

The US used it in Falalla, knowing that civilians remained in the city. IIRC, that is the primary restriction of the use of WP.

Click to expand...

Shame on them for using it in a city with more civilians than enemy combatants. White phosphorus should be banned through out the world because of how horrible it is. It is not a good way to show you are a civilized nation.

I agree with you completely.

I can't see why they would be dropping it from jets, if it gets used it'll be a canister thrown in to a bunker or emplacement to save the IDF (Conscript remember, not professional soldiers) from as much close quarters battle as possible. In that context it is perfectly acceptable, it kills your enemies and may save some of your soldiers. Getting precious about it being an 'awful way to die' is civilian talk, the military works on whats most effective for the job.

In defense of Napalm, we should be blanket bombing much of Afghanistan in it, nothing better for putting an end to the drugs trade there. The fact that we aren't doing so just demonstrates that our leaders aren't taking the operation seriously.

Pen said:

The US used it in Falalla, knowing that civilians remained in the city. IIRC, that is the primary restriction of the use of WP.

Click to expand...

Source please.

PeteEU said:

So you fine with nukes and bio weapons and other forms of WMD?

Click to expand...

Yes.

PeteEU said:

Great double standard there...

Click to expand...

What double standard? You are assuming something that I am not aware of.

What is wrong with using Napalm and Phosphorous....You do what ever you have to do win?

Loxd4 said:

What is wrong with using Napalm and Phosphorous....You do what ever you have to do win?

Click to expand...

Napalm and Phosphorous do damage to a very wide area of ground. In areas where there are a lot more civilians than terrorists it is in-humane to put the civilians through such suffering. A terrorist in a designated zone not near many civilians can be bombed with napalm but there are better weapons for the job. As for phosphorous how do you expect a third world nation to take use seriously when we say we spread democracy and then use a horrible weapon like white phosphorous?

Pen said:

The US used it in Falalla, knowing that civilians remained in the city. IIRC, that is the primary restriction of the use of WP.

Click to expand...

****ing prove it lier......

pobinr said:

It's a chemical weapon.
Only folks like Saddam (Halabja) & the USA (Napalm in Vietnam) use chemical weapons. Double standards eh ?

Click to expand...

Comparing napalm to VX, sarin, and mustard gas? What a crock.

Sir_Alec said:

Napalm and Phosphorous do damage to a very wide area of ground. In areas where there are a lot more civilians than terrorists it is in-humane to put the civilians through such suffering. A terrorist in a designated zone not near many civilians can be bombed with napalm but there are better weapons for the job. As for phosphorous how do you expect a third world nation to take use seriously when we say we spread democracy and then use a horrible weapon like white phosphorous?

Click to expand...

Well we have smart bomb that kill ten of thousands of people but they can use there only good weapon Phosphorous or Napalm because it wrong we got the weapons...

Trajan Octavian Titus said:

Comparing napalm to VX, sarin, and mustard gas? What a crock.

Click to expand...

Will there is a double standards when it comes to the United States....

Jerry said:

I support Israel’s right to use any and all means/weapons necessary, without exception, to ensure their survival.

Click to expand...

Every One Dose

(P.S Expect The Illegals)

Originally Posted by Jerry
I support Israel’s right to use any and all means/weapons necessary, without exception, to ensure their survival.

Click to expand...

How is an 11 year girl getting "willie peat" ensuring Israel's survival?

Sir_Alec said:

Napalm and Phosphorous do damage to a very wide area of ground. In areas where there are a lot more civilians than terrorists it is in-humane to put the civilians through such suffering. A terrorist in a designated zone not near many civilians can be bombed with napalm but there are better weapons for the job. As for phosphorous how do you expect a third world nation to take use seriously when we say we spread democracy and then use a horrible weapon like white phosphorous?

Click to expand...

White Phosphorous [WP] is not dispensed from aircraft like napalm. Typically it is delivered either via an artillery shell, a mortar round, or a grenade. Mechanized self propelled guns [modern artillery] which are currently used exclusively by the IDF against Hizbollah forces use computerized targeting software. These guns are extremely accurate and the outgoing shells are regarded by most military organizations as high precision projectiles. Mortar rounds are also surprisingly accurate. Grenades of course are only as accurate as the soldier tossing them, but their mere usage implies that the fighting is at close quarters.

It must also be recognized that Hizbollah has had six years [2000-2006] of complete freedom from interference to construct its militia infrastructure in southern Lebanon. According to IDF sources, Hizbollah has available a complex network of tunnels, bunkers, and caves in the Lebanese countryside that are being used as hidden launching sites for missiles aimed at Israel.

The IDF has not verified the use of WP against Hizbollah forces. Under the above theater conditions though, using WP against entrenched, fortified, and isolated enemy targets is sound military doctrine.

WP is indeed an extremely lethal and fearsome weapon. But then again so are many other modern weapon applications such as fuel-air explosives. Simply because a weapon incorporates advantages of physics and chemistry does not render it to be a *chemical* weapon. The Chemical Weapon [CW] designation is usually reserved for a class of chemical agents such as VX or Sarin.

One final note. The international ban on using *napalm* was instituted many years ago. A weakness of this accord is that it explicity specifies the exact chemical composition of napalm. In the many passing years since its adoption however, advances in chemistry have rendered this definition of napalm as outdated. Any nation with a reasonably competant chemical engineering sector can produce a modernized version of napalm that is far superior to the original and yet different enough chemically to be considered as something other than what is specified in the napalm accord. Many modern militaries do indeed have an *updated* version of napalm in their weapons arsenal.

This is War people. The Idea in such a situation is to win, sometimes thru attrition of enemy ground forces (as seems the case here). I do not think there has ever been a clean and tidy conflict in the history of mankind, and this will be no exception. The complex politics involved between Isreal and its neighbors might be set aside when discussing the actual warfare, as there cannot be a concensus on right vs. wrong, but instead who will be victorious in battle.
If Isreal decides to use anything short of Poison/Nuclear Capability to win this war, and remove an aggressor from its border...so be it, they are simply trying to win a war. For anyone here deciding they have overstepped some hidden rule in the "Warfare Handbook", I would recommend you look up Depleted Uranium on Google......and then reconsider your opinion in the light of another term....Hypocracy.

Shayah said:

White Phosphorous [WP] is not dispensed from aircraft like napalm. Typically it is delivered either via an artillery shell, a mortar round, or a grenade.
...
It must also be recognized that Hizbollah has had six years [2000-2006] of complete freedom from interference to construct its militia infrastructure in southern Lebanon. According to IDF sources, Hizbollah has available a complex network of tunnels, bunkers, and caves in the Lebanese countryside that are being used as hidden launching sites for missiles aimed at Israel.

The IDF has not verified the use of WP against Hizbollah forces. Under the above theater conditions though, using WP against entrenched, fortified, and isolated enemy targets is sound military doctrine.
...

Click to expand...

What she means is James was right on the money earlier in the tread.

JamesRichards said:

I can't see why they would be dropping it from jets, if it gets used it'll be a canister thrown in to a bunker or emplacement to save the IDF (Conscript remember, not professional soldiers) from as much close quarters battle as possible. In that context it is perfectly acceptable, it kills your enemies and may save some of your soldiers. Getting precious about it being an 'awful way to die' is civilian talk, the military works on whats most effective for the job.

Click to expand...

:mrgreen: Thanks for the backup Shayah. Just for a moment it looked like everyone was ignoring the common sense.

White Phosphorous is against the Geneva Conventions. Using it is a Crime Against Humanity. Anyone who tries to justify its use is nothing short of a barbarian and absolutely a terrorist yourself!