Israel's (Possible) Use of Phosphorous

[Jay R]

Now, now Billo.:naughty

You ever hear the song 'Guns don't kill people (Rappers do)'? Using a certain weapon doesn't make anyone a terrorist, it's how you use it that defines that.

Releasing a canister of Sarin on the Tokyo subway? You're a terrorist.

Toss a phosphorous grenade down a Hezbollah spider hole? Just doing your job (Roach exterminator, obviously).

 

[tecoyah]

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!

Cool, second time this week I've been called a terrorist....Woo Hoo.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

Now, now Billo.:naughty

You ever hear the song 'Guns don't kill people (Rappers do)'? Using a certain weapon doesn't make anyone a terrorist, it's how you use it that defines that.

Releasing a canister of Sarin on the Tokyo subway? You're a terrorist.

Toss a phosphorous grenade down a Hezbollah spider hole? Just doing your job (Roach exterminator, obviously).

So by your logic, if the U.S. were to use Sarin or VX on Venezuela it would be acceptable?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by tecoyah
Cool, second time this week I've been called a terrorist....Woo Hoo.

Would you rather be a hypocrit or a two-faced POS? Doesn't matter, I don't really care what you are. You can be a peaceful Muslim or a perfect Christian. Ya'll look alike to me.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by JamesRichards
Now, now Billo.

You ever hear the song 'Guns don't kill people (Rappers do)'? Using a certain weapon doesn't make anyone a terrorist, it's how you use it that defines that.

Releasing a canister of Sarin on the Tokyo subway? You're a terrorist.

Toss a phosphorous grenade down a Hezbollah spider hole? Just doing your job (Roach exterminator, obviously).

If we claim to be a civilized society and come from a place of moral high ground, then we have to act like it. Justifying the use of WMD's is not that.

 

[taxedout]

It's a chemical weapon.

C-4 is a chemical too. So what ?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If we claim to be a civilized society and come from a place of moral high ground, then we have to act like it. Justifying the use of WMD's is not that.

WP isn't a chemical weapon it's an incendiary and using it for marking and screening is well within the rules of war and please provide the provision in the Geneva Convention, the U.N. res., or treaty that outlaws the use of WP against military targets or classifies it as a chemical weapon and not an incendiary, because according to the army field manual: "The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law."

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
WP isn't a chemical weapon it's an incendiary and using it for marking and screening is well within the rules of war and please provide the provision in the Geneva Convention, the U.N. res., or treaty that outlaws the use of WP against military targets or classifies it as a chemical weapon and not an incendiary, because according to the army field manual: "The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law."

Here you go...

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980.

' Recalling ' that every State has the duty, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

' Further recalling ' the general principle of the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities,

' Basing themselves ' on the principle of international law that the right of the parties to an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited, and on the principle that prohibits the employment in armed conflicts of weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering,

' Also recalling ' that it is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment,

' Confirming their determination ' that in cases not covered by this Convention and its annexed Protocols or by other international agreements, the civilian population and the combatants shall at all times remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience,

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/500?OpenDocument

 

[Jay R]

So by your logic, if the U.S. were to use Sarin or VX on Venezuela it would be acceptable?

Depends upon how you utilise it as I said in my previous post. All weapons regardless of their individual characteristics are lethal, tools for the killing of people, it is the way one chooses to use them that defines you as a terrorist, killler, genocidal psychopath, etc. Weapons of any kind empower the wielder, how they choose to use that power defines them. As Spiderman said "With great power comes great responsibility."

In your example, Sarin or VX on Venezuela, how are you going to deploy it? Blanket bomb it on cities? That would be highly unnacceptable, you'd murder millions, that makes you a genocidal maniac. But you could hit the government with a precision strike delivered by special operations into the aircon of their building, assuming you wanted to eliminate Chavez government that would be a more acceptable way to employ the weapons you suggest. Notice how the two methods produce vastly different results, it's up to you to choose which to use, and indeed to decide whether to carry out an attack on the country in the first place.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here you go...

Only one problem there quick draw WP was not listed in the Annex of banned chemicals, WP is considered to be an incendiary rather than a chemical weapon and there is no treaty or convention which bans its use:

Annex on Chemicals

http://www.debatepolitics.com/
A. GUIDELINES FOR SCHEDULES OF CHEMICALS

Guidelines for Schedule 1
1. The following criteria shall be taken into account in considering whether a toxic chemical or precursor should be included in Schedule 1:

(a) It has been developed, produced, stockpiled or used as a chemical weapon as defined in Article II;
(b) It poses otherwise a high risk to the object and purpose of this Convention by virtue of its high potential for use in activities prohibited under this Convention because one or more of the following conditions are met:

(i) It possesses a chemical structure closely related to that of other toxic chemicals listed in Schedule 1, and has, or can be expected to have, comparable properties;
(ii) It possesses such lethal or incapacitating toxicity as well as other properties that would enable it to be used as a chemical weapon;
(iii) It may be used as a precursor in the final single technological stage of production of a toxic chemical listed in Schedule 1, regardless of whether this stage takes place in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere;
​

(c) It has little or no use for purposes not prohibited under this
Convention.
​

Guidelines for Schedule 2
2. The following criteria shall be taken into account in considering whether a toxic chemical not listed in Schedule 1 or a precursor to a Schedule 1 chemical or to a chemical listed in Schedule 2, part A, should be included in Schedule 2:

(a) It poses a significant risk to the object and purpose of this Convention because it possesses such lethal or incapacitating toxicity as well as other properties that could enable it to be used as a chemical weapon;
(b) It may be used as a precursor in one of the chemical reactions at the final stage of formation of a chemical listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, part A;
(c) It poses a significant risk to the object and purpose of this Convention by virtue of its importance in the production of a chemical listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, part A;
(d) It is not produced in large commercial quantities for purposes not prohibited under this Convention.
​

Guidelines for Schedule 3
3. The following criteria shall be taken into account in considering whether a toxic chemical or precursor, not listed in other Schedules, should be included in Schedule 3:

(a) It has been produced, stockpiled or used as a chemical weapon;
(b) It poses otherwise a risk to the object and purpose of this Convention because it possesses such lethal or incapacitating toxicity as well as other properties that might enable it to be used as a chemical weapon;
(c) It poses a risk to the object and purpose of this Convention by virtue of its importance in the production of one or more chemicals listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, part B;
(d) It may be produced in large commercial quantities for purposes not prohibited under this Convention.
​

http://www.debatepolitics.com/
B. SCHEDULES OF CHEMICALS

The following Schedules list toxic chemicals and their precursors. For the purpose of implementing this Convention, these Schedules identify chemicals for the application of verification measures according to the provisions of the Verification Annex. Pursuant to Article II, subparagraph 1 (a), these Schedules do not constitute a definition of chemical weapons.
(Whenever reference is made to groups of dialkylated chemicals, followed by a list of alkyl groups in parentheses, all chemicals possible by all possible combinations of alkyl groups listed in the parentheses are considered as listed in the respective Schedule as long as they are not explicitly exempted. A chemical marked "*" on Schedule 2, part A, is subject to special thresholds for declaration and verification, as specified in Part VII of the Verification Annex.)

Schedule 1(CAS Registry number) A.

Toxic chemicals:

(1)O-Alkyl (<C10, incl. cycloalkyl) alkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-phosphonofluoridates e.g. Sarin:O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate(107-44-8) Soman:O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate(96-64-0)

(2)O-Alkyl (<C10, incl. cycloalkyl) N,N-dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphoramidocyanidates e.g. Tabun:O-Ethyl N,N-dimethyl phosphoramidocyanidate(77-81-6)

(3)O-Alkyl (H or <C10, incl. cycloalkyl) S-2-dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-aminoethyl alkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonothiolates and corresponding alkylated or protonated salts e.g.VX:O-Ethyl S-2-diisopropylaminoethyl methyl phosphonothiolate(50782-69-9)

(4)Sulfur mustards: 2-Chloroethylchloromethylsulfide(2625-76-5) Mustard gas: Bis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide(505-60-2) Bis(2-chloroethylthio)methane(63869-13-6) Sesquimustard: 1,2-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)ethane(3563-36-8) 1,3-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-propane(63905-10-2) 1,4-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-butane(142868-93-7) 1,5-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-pentane(142868-94-8) Bis(2-chloroethylthiomethyl)ether(63918-90-1) O-Mustard: Bis(2-chloroethylthioethyl)ether(63918-89-8)

(5)Lewisites: Lewisite 1: 2-Chlorovinyldichloroarsine(541-25-3) Lewisite 2: Bis(2-chlorovinyl)chloroarsine(40334-69-8) Lewisite 3: Tris(2-chlorovinyl)arsine(40334-70-1)

(6)Nitrogen mustards: HN1: Bis(2-chloroethyl)ethylamine(538-07-8) HN2: Bis(2-chloroethyl)methylamine(51-75-2) HN3: Tris(2-chloroethyl)amine(555-77-1)

(7)Saxitoxin(35523-89-8)

(8)Ricin(9009-86-3)

B.Precursors:

(9)Alkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonyldifluorides e.g.DF:Methylphosphonyldifluoride(676-99-3)

(10)O-Alkyl (H or <C10, incl. cycloalkyl) O-2-dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-aminoethyl alkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonites and corresponding alkylated or protonated salts e.g.QL:O-Ethyl O-2-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonite(57856-11-8)

(11)Chlorosarin: O-Isopropyl methylphosphonochloridate(1445-76-7)

(12)Chlorosoman: O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonochloridate(7040-57-5)

Schedule 2 (CAS Registry number) A.

Toxic chemicals:

(1)Amiton: O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(diethylamino)ethyl] phosphorothiolate(78-53-5) and corresponding alkylated or protonated salts

(2)PFIB: 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene(382-21-8)

(3)BZ: 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (*)(6581-06-2) B.

Precursors:

(4)Chemicals, except for those listed in Schedule 1, containing a phosphorus atom to which is bonded one methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso) group but not further carbon atoms, e.gMethylphosphonyl dichloride(676-97-1) Dimethyl methylphosphonate(756-79-6) Exemption: Fonofos:O-Ethyl S-phenyl ethylphosphonothiolothionate(944-22-9)

(5)N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphoramidic dihalides

(6)Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) N,N-dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-phosphoramidates

(7)Arsenic trichloride(7784-34-1)

(8)2,2-Diphenyl-2-hydroxyacetic acid(76-93-7)

(9)Quinuclidin-3-ol(1619-34-7)

(10)N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethyl-2-chlorides and corresponding protonated salts

(11)N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-ols and corresponding protonated salts Exemptions:N,N-Dimethylaminoethanol(108-01-0) and corresponding protonated salts N,N-Diethylaminoethanol(100-37-8) and corresponding protonated salts

(12)N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-thiols and corresponding protonated salts

(13)Thiodiglycol: Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)sulfide(111-48-8)

(14)Pinacolyl alcohol: 3,3-Dimethylbutan-2-ol(464-07-3)

Schedule 3 (CAS Registry number) A.

Toxic chemicals:

(1)Phosgene: Carbonyl dichloride(75-44-5)

(2)Cyanogen chloride(506-77-4)

(3)Hydrogen cyanide(74-90-8)

(4)Chloropicrin: Trichloronitromethane(76-06-2) B.

Precursors:

(5)Phosphorus oxychloride(10025-87-3)

(6)Phosphorus trichloride(7719-12-2)

(7)Phosphorus pentachloride(10026-13-8)

(8)Trimethyl phosphite(121-45-9)

(9)Triethyl phosphite(122-52-1)

(10)Dimethyl phosphite(868-85-9)

(11)Diethyl phosphite(762-04-9)

(12)Sulfur monochloride(10025-67-9)

(13)Sulfur dichloride(10545-99-0)

(14)Thionyl chloride(7719-09-7)

(15)Ethyldiethanolamine(139-87-7)

(16)Methyldiethanolamine(105-59-9)

(17)Triethanolamine(102-71-6)

http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_annex_on_chemicals.html

Nice try Billo but creating war crimes in your own mind doesn't make it true. WP is perfectly legal for use in war.

 

[Jerry]

Every One Dose

(P.S Expect The Illegals)

I have no idea what that is suppose to mean.

 

[Jerry]

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

Hay, instant vaporization seems a better way to go, IMO.

Its gona happen....Backscratchistan is going to get its hands on a WMD and threaten Israel with imminent destruction, and Israel will respond preemptively in kind.

 

[taxedout]

Nice try Billo but creating war crimes in your own mind doesn't make it true. WP is perfectly legal for use in war.

OUCHY, That hurts !!!!!!!! :spank:

 

[superskippy]

If there were any real substantial evidence that we had used White Phospherus then we might talk.

But thus far it doesnt even make a tactical sense for us to use them save for our ground troops perhaps and they most definatly have not been using them.

 

[Goobieman]

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?

WP is not a chemical weapon any more than, say, napalm is.

 

[Deegan]

We all know that Israel is going to be held to standards that the rest of the Middle East is not going to be required to uphold. This is seen in the reporting of this crisis daily on the news, it's ridiculous, but I know we will hear more of this nonsense everyday this continues.:roll: