Israel vs. Hamas - Thread III

[MobBoss]

Citations? Sources? Please do not make any claims without any sound evidence to support them. Simply stating your claims based on "what I have seen and read" has no more credibility than a drunken mental patient saying he saw the Loch Ness.

I have already linked several and in some cases your own links have even verified it.

In the last link I gave in the other thread, it referenced a guy from Janes Defense who verified that WP does not violate the GC. Since you seem not able to remember it here it is again:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece

And the quote:

Neil Gibson, technical adviser to Jane's Missiles and Rockets, insisted that the M825A1 was a WP round. “The M825A1 is an improved model. The WP does not fill the shell but is impregnated into 116 felt wedges which, once dispersed [by a high-explosive charge], start to burn within four to five seconds. They then burn for five to ten minutes. The smoke screen produced is extremely effective,” he said.

The shell is not defined as an incendiary weapon by the Third Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons because its principal use is to produce smoke to protect troops.

I think that puts the entire arguement to rest. Or at least it should.

If you haven't read my previous post from the former thread clearly, here it is again:

Yeah, we have ALL read it repeatedly since you spam it as some kind of magic answer to everything.

However, much of it is in error. The newshogs blog even gets the nomenclature for the WP round in error. Its M825A1....not M483A1. If you go to the link I offered you can actually see the nomenclature on the round itself. Its not M483A1. The M483A1 isnt a smoke round at all, but an anti-personnel munition. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m483.htm

Now, I know you will laugh all this off as technical bs...but it plainly shows your blogs and reporters are in simple error in their allegations that thee M483A1 round is a WP round. Its simply not.

Why would WP be used even more frequently if IDF wishes to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza, as declared by the Israeli foreign ministry to the concerned international community?

Because ground operations make even more use of smoke to protect friendly infantry assaulting a position. Its basic infantry tactics. The main reason smoke is being used in Gaza at all is to obscure Hamas militants aim from their own firing positions.

As I have already strongly stated, there are numerous other much more impervious substitutions Israel can use to create smoke screen in protection of its troops, including titanium tetrachloride, Chlorosulfuric acid, or Zinc chloride, as opposed to phosphorus that are used as the smoke generating chemical agent in Israel's M483A1 Smoke round that inflict unnecessary and collateral, severe and life permanent 4th degree burn damage to innocent civilians.

The M483A1 isnt a smoke round. Its filled with grenades. Again: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m483.htm

The M483A1 delivers 88 dual purpose anti-material and anti-personnel grenades - the M42 (quantity 64/projo) and M46 (quantity 24/projo). The M46s are located at the base of the projectile and are heavier/thicker and have a smooth interior surface that enables it to withstand the shock of firing and set back. The M42 grenades are scored for greater fragmentation and are place to the front of the M46 grenades. The submissions have a shaped charge warhead that penetrates 2.75 inches of homogeneous armor. Antipersonnel effects are obtained by fragmentation of the submissions body. This projectile introduces a different family of projectiles, the ICM Family. The ICM family is approximately 3 1/2 inches longer and has a standard square weight of 13.5 lbs. This projectile has a self-registration mode with projectile spotting charge M125. The M577 fuze is the only authorized fuze.

The M483A1 does not have better accuracy or efficiently than other smoke shells in service by the IDF.

Correct. In fact, its not a smoke shell at all.

If you had taken the time to even look up what an M483A1 was, you would know this.

In contrary, the M483A1 is criticized by Human Rights Watch groups as being notorious with its inaccuracy, high failure rates, and its unnecessarily lethal collateral damage that puts innocent civilians in tremendous risks of burns that lasts for 36 hours and ultimate death.

Its criticized not because it uses WP (it doesnt), but because it uses grenade submunitions.

And about this '36 hours' thing. Wth is that? Do you have actually any idea how quickly White Phos burns and consumes itself? Its a matter of minutes. Not hours...let alone 36 hours. /boggle.

Please MobBoss, do us all a favor, if your future response to an argument is as feeble and pitiful as your last attempt, save it for yourself.

I will let the others reading this decide if correcting you on the munition is a feeble and pitiful response. At least I know wth it is...unlike you. But hey, you read it in a blog so it must be true, right?

If it looks like a duck. If it walks like a duck. If it quacks like a duck...

It might be a guy in a duck suit.

 

[MobBoss]

Do you see where this is going?

Yes, I do. And the only way its going to end is if we draw a line right now and say 'no more'.

The palistianians problems arent going to be solved by rockets, and until they finally accept that Israel isnt going anywhere, this will continue.

I apologize, if that's the case, seems I read that the wrong way.

Thanks for you saying so and I am glad you were able to read it in the way I intended. The 'you' was directed at those that fire the rockets. Nothing more.

Arguing about who's more wrong, who is responsible for the blame of dead civilians is the one thing that is keeping the status quo alive. It really pisses me off, which is really why I said before I shouldn't get into this kind of thread. (and explains my reaction earlier)

Its understandable. As long as Hamas keeps shooting rockets and not recognizing Israel, and the IDF are not allowed to go at them full-bore to end it....there isnt going to be an end.

 

[devilhunterred]

Now, I know you will laugh all this off as technical bs...but it plainly shows your blogs and reporters are in simple error in their allegations that thee M483A1 round is a WP round. Its simply not.

No, I'm not laughing it off, I respect your eyes for spotting technicality. I admit that was a mixed up mistake on my part, and I sincerely apologize to any reader that has caught up in the confusion between the two models.

Regardless, the fact is, M825A1 round is essentially an upgraded version of the M483A1 cluster munition shells:

Sourced from http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jah/jah_0461.html :

"Development
The 155 mm M825A1 smoke WP was developed to replace the venerable M110 family of WP/smoke projectiles (see separate entry) and was produced by the Chamberlain Corporation (metal parts) for the US Army and the US Marine Corps, although in fact the M110A2 remains in US production as a cheaper alternative. It is one of the projectiles developed from the 155 mm M483A1 Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition (DPICM) projectile and has virtually matching ballistics, although the M825A1 can be fired using the M203 propellant charges. The original M825 suffered some flight instability, and the M825A1 remedied that with an improved payload and a new base. The M825A1 smoke WP has the advantage over other WP-filled smoke projectiles in that it does not need to be stored base down, as is usually the case with WP projectiles, because the saturated felt wedges used for the smoke production prohibit migration; there is therefore no shifting of the centre of gravity within the casing.Prior to Fiscal Year 98, approximately 460,000 examples of this projectile had been procured by the US armed forces. No procurement has been made since then.

Description
The 155 mm M825A1 smoke WP is a separate-loading base-ejection smoke-producing projectile. It uses a body virtually identical to that of the 155 mm M483A1 DPICM. The projectile has a 155 mm M483A1 DPICM aluminium ogive section and expulsion charge, a forged-steel modified M483A1 body and a threaded steel ring and aluminium body base. Inside the body is a hermetically sealed canister containing 116 WP saturated felt wedges, each 190 mm thick and separated into four quadrants of 29 wedges each. A 63.5 mm diameter burster charge containing approximately 45 g of Composition B runs the entire length of the canister's centre cavity.In operation, the nose-mounted time fuze is set to function at a selected point during the projectile's trajectory. When the fuze functions, it ignites a 51 g expulsion charge of M10 propellant which creates sufficient internal pressure within the ogive to push off the body base and eject the canister. The expulsion charge also ignites a 100 ms pyrotechnic delay, enabling the canister to be fully ejected from the carrier body before the burster charge (21.2 g of Composition A5) ignites to break open the canister and release the WP-saturated felt wedges. The total weight of WP in the wedges is 5.78 kg. A launch-activated safe-and-arm module from an M739 Point-Detonating (PD) fuze separates the forward end of the main burster charge from the heat-sensitive pyrotechnic-delay element.In less than 45 seconds from the moment they meet the air, the separated felt wedges start to burn and produce."


Instead of containing and launching 88 anti-personnel grenades as the M483A1 does, M825A1 shells fires 116 White Phosphorus saturated felt wedges in a similar cluster bursting method as its cousin, the M483A1 round. As shown in the photos present in the following websites:

http://www.imemc.org/article/58420

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/m825a1_effects_usafas.jpg


Furthermore, my previous source: http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/01/is-israel-using-cluster-munitions-on-urban-areas.html, has already been recently updated by its author, and confirmed that the shells in question in the photo is in fact, upgraded version of the M483A1, the M825A1, firing WP rounds into densely populated areas in Gaza.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece

The shell is not defined as an incendiary weapon by the Third Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons because its principal use is to produce smoke to protect troops. However, Marc Galasco, of Human Rights Watch, said: “Recognising the significant incidental incendiary effect that white phosphorus creates, there is great concern that Israel is failing to take all feasible steps to avoid civilian loss of life and property by using WP in densely populated urban areas. This concern is amplified given the technique evidenced in media photographs of air-bursting WP projectiles at relatively low levels, seemingly to maximise its incendiary effect.”

Please read the part of the quote colored in red, carefully.

Perhaps instead of simply quoting the part you find useful for your own personal end, you should have provided the entire, complete quote to the readers, even if it is not siding with your claims.

Second, you may like to know that from the source that you have given: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece?sub=wp

In the second paragraph, it clearly stated:
"There is also evidence that the rounds [Israel's M825A1 that were fired into dense populated areas in Gaza] have injured Palestinian civilians, causing severe burns. The use of white phosphorus against civilians is prohibited under international law."

I agree completely, the source that you provided certainly put the argument in rest.

Because ground operations make even more use of smoke to protect friendly infantry assaulting a position. Its basic infantry tactics. The main reason smoke is being used in Gaza at all is to obscure Hamas militants aim from their own firing positions.

No, that wasn't my question, that was only the first half of my question.

My complete question was:

"Why would WP be used even more frequently if IDF wishes to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza, as declared by the Israeli foreign ministry to the concerned international community? Especially when there are numerous other much more impervious substitutions Israel can use to create smoke screen in protection of its troops, including titanium tetrachloride, Chlorosulfuric acid, or Zinc chloride, as opposed to phosphorus that are used as the smoke generating chemical agent in Israel's M825A1 Smoke round that inflict unnecessary and collateral, severe and life permanent 4th degree burn damage to innocent civilians."


After 8 consecutive posts, you still have not provided an answer to the true question.

If you had taken the time to even look up what an M483A1 was, you would know this.

I certainly did, perhaps even much more in detail than you did.

 

[Patroklos]

Reports emerging from the aftermath of this conflict seem to confirm that they are "a bunch of monsters - war criminals that care nothing" or at least not a great deal "about civilian casualties." That's why 1300 Palestinians have been killed.

The fact that 1300 Palestinians were killed, a historically unheard of figure, vice say 50,000 PROVES the Isrealis care a great deal about minimizng civilian casualties.

don't agree that they are, neither do I agree that other civilians are legitimate targets either for voting for Hamas, or for that matter, standing next to them in a bus queue.

I see, so a wartime adversary of the US bombing the CIA or the NSA would be a warcrime?

I don't agree that they are, neither do I agree that other civilians are legitimate targets either for voting for Hamas, or for that matter, standing next to them in a bus queue.

No, that makes it a 1:2 ratio, which given the circumstances is AMAZING.

 

[MobBoss]

Instead of containing and launching 88 anti-personnel grenades as the M483A1 does, M285A1 shells fires 116 White Phosphorus saturated felt wedges in a similar cluster bursting method as its cousin, the M483A1 round. As shown in the photos present in the following websites:

I already gave you all that pages and pages ago. Photos and all. And you called it BS.

But here you are posting what I already did. Pages ago.

I already commented on the Human Rights Watch guy pages ago to...

What Glasco doesnt understand is implementing the round in that manner also accentuates its smoke capability. The lower it goes off, the more precise and dense the cloud of smoke it creates. The IDF is simply using the round the same exact way any other military all over the world would use it.

Get with the program and keep up.

The use of white phosphorus against civilians is prohibited under international law."

Its not being used against civilians however. Its being used to provide cover from Hamas firing positions. Surely you understand the difference.

My complete question was:

"Why would WP be used even more frequently if IDF wishes to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza, as declared by the Israeli foreign ministry to the concerned international community? Especially when there are numerous other much more impervious substitutions Israel can use to create smoke screen in protection of its troops, including titanium tetrachloride, Chlorosulfuric acid, or Zinc chloride, as opposed to phosphorus that are used as the smoke generating chemical agent in Israel's M285A1 Smoke round that inflict unnecessary and collateral, severe and life permanent 4th degree burn damage to innocent civilians."

Lets break down your question then.

Do you have examples of 'other' smoke artillery rounds available in the IDFs inventory? No? There is a reason they use WP. That reason is that it is by far and away the ultimate best smoke chemical out there...bar none. It provides the thickist smoke, while burning quickly as to mitigate burn effects.

To be honest, I dont think there are any other rounds in the inventory that dont use WP as a smoke agent.

Also, it goes without saying that a HUGE number of militarys all over the WORLD use the same exact smoke agent. Its not just the IDF, you can practically find that round or something similar in use all over the world.

I certainly did, perhaps even much more in detail than you did.

Yeah, after I pointed out the error to you. I was posting the tech specs pages ago back in the other thread when you called it 'technical bs'.

 

[MobBoss]

The fact that 1300 Palestinians were killed, a historically unheard of figure, vice say 50,000 PROVES the Isrealis care a great deal about minimizng civilian casualties.

Pat is simply right on the money here. If maximizing civilian casualties were the IDFs goal, then we should have seen far more deaths in Gaza than merely 1300 (some of which were undoubtedly from Hamas fire as well).

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't agree that they are, neither do I agree that other civilians are legitimate targets either for voting for Hamas, or for that matter, standing next to them in a bus queue.

You don't think that targeting members of the government which is calling for war is 'legitimate'? But it's the one getting the weapons and authorising their use!

No, that makes it a 1:2 ratio, which given the circumstances is AMAZING.

I don't know if it's amazing. We saw a very excellent ratio turn worse. I don't know if the aggregate is the best metric. I wouldn't be happy if a criminal situation was resolved with a 1:2 ratio in my country.

I think we'll continue to see rockets fall, but part of that could be due to the fact that people still have weapons and Hamas (the official organisation) can't control all the militants anyway

 

[devilhunterred]

I already gave you all that pages and pages ago. Photos and all. And you called it BS. But here you are posting what I already did. Pages ago.

I called it technical BS because you were using the definition and specs of the smoke round to rule out the very fact that the M825A1 round was capable of inflicting unneccessary collateral damage of life-permanent burns to the surrounding civilians.

You also seemed to ignore the horrifying fact that white phosphorus commences to ignite when comes into contact with oxygen, and would continue its ignition until all oxygen in the surrounding is consumed. When WP comes into contact with any part of the body, the only way to save the victim's life is often amputation. WP also has the property to penetrate any material of clothings, save for perhaps a level 4, 5 Haz mat suit. Untreated WP burnt victims' skin will start peeling slowly, and eventually their bodies turn to ashes as the WP seeps through their flesh and bones.

This substance, ladies and gentlemen, is the WP M825A1 shells that Israel is currently firing into the Gazan civilian population.

I already commented on the Human Rights Watch guy pages ago to...

No one recalls that you did.

Anyhow it wouldn't hurt you to reply again.

There is a reason they use WP. That reason is that it is by far and away the ultimate best smoke chemical out there...bar none. It provides the thickist smoke, while burning quickly as to mitigate burn effects.

This is merely a pesonal and subjective opinion of yours. Stating that WP M825A1 provides the best smoke seemingly as a fact is a statement of equal ridicule as stating that the M16A2 is the best assault rifle ever made in history.

However, the reality of the usage of M825A1 shells causing tremendous collateral damage and casualties on the Gazan civilians remains a true, hard, fact.

Do you have examples of 'other' smoke artillery rounds available in the IDFs inventory?

I have already provided examples of numeous conventional non-WP smoke shells.

Now you are telling me that IDF can build nukes but can't produce a conventional smoke shell that doesn't use WP as its smoke generating chemical?

What Glasco doesnt understand is implementing the round in that manner also accentuates its smoke capability. The lower it goes off, the more precise and dense the cloud of smoke it creates. The IDF is simply using the round the same exact way any other military all over the world would use it.

No, Glasco perfectly understood that the lower the shell disbursts to the ground, the more accumulative and denser the smoke becomes, it's not rocket science, it's high school physics.

What Gasco, Human Rights Watch group, Amnesty International, U.N and the international community concerns about is that the M825A1 smoke shells are being fired and disbursts into densely populated civilian areas, causing uneccessary collateral damage, excruciating burns and death to the innocent Gazan population.

I simply don't understand how many times I have to illustrate this simple fact to your head.

Its not being used against civilians however. Its being used to provide cover from Hamas firing positions. Surely you understand the difference.

I do.

But I don't think you understand the difference between a military intention of "providing cover from Hamas firing position" and the result of "10 burn [Gazan civilian] victims who had skin peeling off their faces and bodies [due to burns from the M825A1 rounds]".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_white_phosphorus

Maybe this video would ease your mind:

http://cc.aljazeera.net/asset/language/english/gaza-white-phosphorous

The clip clearly shows WP M825A1 rounds fired directly above population centers in Gaza. Israel's response to this accusation was that the rounds were fired into the city to create smoke for its troops.

However, given Gaza's high population density of 4000+ per sq km, Israel is already violating the International Humanitarian Law:

UN CCW Convention. Protocol III, Article 2, Section 2:

"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."


Although the WP M825A1 is a smoke shell upgrade of the M483A1, its designed intention was to create smoke, however the White phosphorus chemicals the shells contain provide it the complete potential to be transformed into lethal incendiary weapons.

As additional evidence, I will quote your next line:

it goes without saying that a HUGE number of militarys all over the WORLD use the same exact smoke agent. Its not just the IDF.

Precisely.

The US has also used the WP before, in Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah. They used WP projecties specifically in "shake and bake" missions to burn and elinminate Iraqi insurgents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4442156.stm

"A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants" - though not against civilians, he said."

US was able to get away with using WP as a weapon in Fallujah, one of the primary reasons was that the civilian casualities during the city siege was, fortunately, mild, around 600-800.

This clearly confirms the incendiary killing capability any type of WP contained projectile possesses, and therefore classifying it as a potential weapon.

You cannot state that WP shells are perfectly legal if being used for smoke generating purposes while completely ignoring its highly lethal incendiary properties especially when used anywhere near proximity of highly dense civilian population in Gaza.

It just doesn't work.

 

[MobBoss]

I called it technical BS because you were using the definition and specs of the smoke round to rule out the very fact that the M825A1 round was capable of inflicting unneccessary collateral damage of life-permanent burns to the surrounding civilians.

I never ruled it out. Please go re-read my posts. I said its design lessened the likelyhood of such injuries to occur and thats simply a fact of its design.

Its designed to not maximize burn injuries, but to minimize them.

And I am about tired of you accusing me of stuff that I never said or purposefully misrepresenting my point...like you have here. Again, I never used the definition in the way you allege. NEVER. And you are being false in saying I did.

You also seemed to ignore the horrifying fact that white phosphorus commences to ignite when comes into contact with oxygen, and would continue its ignition until all oxygen in the surrounding is consumed.

I dont ignore that at all. But the technical specs of the round in question...ie. THE TRUTH say each felt wedge with the WP in it can only burn for 5 to 10 minutes while emitting smoke.......not 36 hours. Again, I quote the guy from Janes Defense:

The WP does not fill the shell but is impregnated into 116 felt wedges which, once dispersed [by a high-explosive charge], start to burn within four to five seconds. They then burn for five to ten minutes.

There you have it. 5 to 10 minutes, just like I said - not 36 hours....like you said.

When WP comes into contact with any part of the body, the only way to save the victim's life is often amputation. WP also has the property to penetrate any material of clothings, save for perhaps a level 4, 5 Haz mat suit. Untreated WP burnt victims' skin will start peeling slowly, and eventually their bodies turn to ashes as the WP seeps through their flesh and bones

.

Oh, god...someones been watching too much hollywood movies.

This substance, ladies and gentlemen, is the WP M825A1 shells that Israel is currently firing into the Gazan civilian population.

Which is designed and implemented as a smoke round...not as an anti-personnel round. Period.

No one recalls that you did.

You mean you dont. Its right there in the other thread.

This is merely a pesonal and subjective opinion of yours.

No its not. I gave links that give expert proof and opinion to back it up.

Stating that WP M825A1 provides the best smoke seemingly as a fact is a statement of equal ridicule as stating that the M16A2 is the best assault rifle ever made in history.

I said White Phosphorus provides the best smoke...not that particular round. Comprehension please. But dont take my word on it. From the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)

Weight-for-weight, phosphorus is the most effective smoke-screening agent known, for two reasons: first, it absorbs most of the screening mass from the surrounding atmosphere and secondly, the smoke particles are an aerosol, a mist of liquid droplets which are close to the ideal range of sizes for Mie scattering of visible light. This effect has been likened to three dimensional textured privacy glass—the smoke cloud does not simply obstruct an image, but thoroughly scrambles both visual and infrared radiation, interfering with infra-red optics and weapon-tracking systems, serving as a protection for military forces from guided weapons such as anti-tank missiles.

Satisfied? Again, I prove I know WTH I am talking about and you dont.

However, the reality of the usage of M825A1 shells causing tremendous collateral damage and casualties on the Gazan civilians remains a true, hard, fact.

It does cause some, but tremendous isnt an accurate descriptive word.

I have already provided examples of numeous conventional non-WP smoke shells.

No you havent. Can you link some? Do you know if they are in the IDF inventory?

Now you are telling me that IDF can build nukes but can't produce a conventional smoke shell that doesn't use WP as its smoke generating chemical?

Why should it when it already has the best around?

No, Glasco perfectly understood that the lower the shell disbursts to the ground, the more accumulative and denser the smoke becomes, it's not rocket science, it's high school physics.

If true, then he realizes that legitimizes its use in that environment.

But I don't think you understand the difference between a military intention of "providing cover from Hamas firing position" and the result of "10 burn [Gazan civilian] victims who had skin peeling off their faces and bodies [due to burns from the M825A1 rounds]".

That isnt 'tremendous' damage. And guess what? Civilians get hurt in war....while regretable, I dont see that as excessive.

http://cc.aljazeera.net/asset/language/english/gaza-white-phosphorous

Aljazeera? Really?

UN CCW Convention. Protocol III, Article 2, Section 2:

"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."

Again...the round is NOT an incendiary weapon. You're reading of this is in error. Its like saying a bullet is a chemical weapon since it uses a chemical reaction to fire the bullet. Its an inaccurate description of the weapon.

Although the WP M825A1 is a smoke shell upgrade of the M483A1, its designed intention was to create smoke, however the White phosphorus chemicals the shells contain provide it the complete potential to be transformed into lethal incendiary weapons.

Wrong. Guess what? The HE explosive in arty shells can also cause burns via the chemical reaction of the warhead. In your interpretation that would also be a violation of the GC...but its not.

Precisely.

The US has also used the WP before, in Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah. They used WP projecties specifically in "shake and bake" missions to burn and elinminate Iraqi insurgents.

Guess what? It wasnt a warcrime then either.

"A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants" - though not against civilians, he said."

That wasnt in regards to fallujah or the shake and bake operations you are referring to. Totally seperate incident in regards to using a napalm-like firebomb to take out a bridge.....not WP.

You cannot state that WP shells are perfectly legal if being used for smoke generating purposes while completely ignoring its highly lethal incendiary properties especially when used anywhere near proximity of highly dense civilian population in Gaza.

Actually, yes, I can...and I do.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

yes, I can.

Isn't this that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in three simple words?

Didn't know you became a believer.

 

[Maimonides]

MobBoss, that guy is arguing about a smoke bomb. There's no point in you trying to debate him. He has little grasp of reality. If the israelis were firing bottle rockets, he'd argue that they were trying to set roofs on fire...

On a side note, does the Geneva Convention allow Roman candles?

 

[devilhunterred]

Its designed to not maximize burn injuries, but to minimize them.

Its designers sure did a very exceptional job "minimizing" it.

And I am about tired of you accusing me of stuff that I never said or purposefully misrepresenting my point...like you have here. Again, I never used the definition in the way you allege. NEVER. And you are being false in saying I did.

Likewise, the feeling is mutual.

There you have it. 5 to 10 minutes, just like I said - not 36 hours....like you said.

What you fail to understand is that the 5 to 10 minutes is the average time it takes for white phosphorus to burn in a normal oxygentated enviornment until it stablizes into phosphorus Pentoxide. If WP comes into contact with human skin or flesh it starts a chemical reaction where WP starts to burn uncontrollably through the flesh. The only way to stop the burning from spreading into the rest of the limb or body is to simply amputate the affected body part.

WP can penetrate almost all kinds of clothings, it's a known fact, and this is also what makes it one of the most dangerous substances in the world.

It's called chemistry, haven't you learnt it in high school.......

Oh right. I forgot that US military actually accepts high school drop-outs.

Oh, god...someones been watching too much hollywood movies..

I have already proven my claims, if you still doubt them, seriously go learn some Chem 101. You may even ask any doctors and medical staff experienced in dealing with chemical burns, they will tell you the same things I have told you.

Bodies being burnt into ashes by WP and skin peeling off is already proven from photos of the Fallujah battlefield.

Although I'm not an expert, you are really just basically demonstrating your serious lack of fundamental science knowledge....

Which is designed and implemented as a smoke round...not as an anti-personnel round. Period.

While having the devastation of an anti-personnel incendiary weapon.

No its not. I gave links that give expert proof and opinion to back it up.

Note the past tense, "gave", not "give".

I said White Phosphorus provides the best smoke...not that particular round. Comprehension please. But dont take my word on it. From the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)

Creating the best smoke...........at the costs of sacrificing innocent civilians as part of the collateral damage?

Wow.

The logic of this is so morally wrong I don't even know where to begin

Again, I prove I know WTH I am talking about and you dont.

Watch that tongue there, kid.

Yea, you sure know what the "heck" you are talking about on WP

It does cause some, but tremendous isnt an accurate descriptive word.

No, "tremendous" is the perfectly accurate descriptive word. U.N and the international community agrees with me.

No you havent. Can you link some? Do you know if they are in the IDF inventory?

Yes I did. I clearly stated all the non-WP chemicals that IDF can use in its smoke shells. I know that you haven't learnt chemistry in high school, but dont tell me you weren't taught to read too............

Do you? You probably don't know what IDF has in its smoke shell inventory either. So I can argue that it's very likely IDF has other alternative and much more impervious smoke shells but refuse to use them.

That isnt 'tremendous' damage. And guess what? Civilians get hurt in war....while regretable, I dont see that as excessive.

Note the subject, "You".

Guess what, "you", especially what "your" thoughts are on this matter, is insignificant.

U.N, Human Rights Watch Group, Amnesty International, Red Cross and the international community certainly see the civilian casualties in Gaza as being excessive.

Aljazeera? Really?

Yes, it' s Aljazeera.

What, you are saying that they contructed the entire Gaza city, stole an Israeli howitzer, launched a WP M825A1 round themselves, so they can fabricated the entire video of IDF firing WP shells into Gaza?

Again...the round is NOT an incendiary weapon. You're reading of this is in error. Its like saying a bullet is a chemical weapon since it uses a chemical reaction to fire the bullet. Its an inaccurate description of the weapon.

If a weapon has the identical devastation and lethal effect of an incendiary weapon, but isn't classified as an incendiary weapon, I don't know what is.

A bullet isn't a chemical weapon because it doesn't use chemical reaction or any chemicals to kill, its lethal capability comes from its kinetic energy and high velocity of penetrating into a target and damaging vital organs.

You sure you want to discuss science? Because I don't think you will come out of it in a good looking shape

Wrong. Guess what? The HE explosive in arty shells can also cause burns via the chemical reaction of the warhead. In your interpretation that would also be a violation of the GC...but its not..

First of all, let me educate you that there is no such thing as an HE explosive.

HE simply stands for High Explosives. Calling it HE explosive is the same as calling it High Explosive explosives. See the redanduncy?

Secondly, HE are not incendiary weapons.

Nalpalms are incendiary weapons. Firebombs are incendiary weapons. Molokov cocktails are incendiary weapons. Flamethroweres are incendiary weapons.

HE are not incendiary weapons.

See the difference?

Like I have said earlier, I am sick and tired of you misinterpretting my texts.

That wasnt in regards to fallujah or the shake and bake operations you are referring to. Totally seperate incident in regards to using a napalm-like firebomb to take out a bridge.....not WP..

US has already openly admitted of using WP as a weapon in Fallujah. It was all over the news. Look it up.

Your profound denial never ceases to amaze me.


[In response to: "You cannot state that WP shells are perfectly legal if being used for smoke generating purposes while completely ignoring its highly lethal incendiary properties especially when used anywhere near proximity of highly dense civilian population in Gaza."]

Actually, yes, I can...and I do.

Well, sure you can, but the majority of the people will just view you as an unreasonable, nonsensical, insensate, nescient.............individual (I will be nice here and end the sentence with a neutral term )

 

[Princeps]

2 things wrong with these 2 statements.

1) Hamas has been firing these rockets for YEARS and UN has done NOTHING. There was only so long they could wait. note that the rocket count was at 8800+. how much longer should they have waited before defending their sovereign soil from the GOVERNMENT of another territory?

It was Israel that violated the ceasefire deal in the first place. The deal included that Israel should allow certain amount of trucks through (iirc, 600), but 20 % were allowed access, thus strangulating the commercial and economic life of Gaza. Of course, this meant that more Hamas tunnels were dug as the private sector of Gaza could not compete with Hamas through conventional trade with the rest of the world. The fact that Israel didn't allow the amount that it promised, means that Israel broke the ceasefire first.

Israel did everything it could to provoke a violent response.

2) Hamas admitted they do. please try again?

Hamas hasn't admitted anything, but only, apparently, one "parlamentarian".

The fact of the matter is that hamas is the governing group in Gaza, and Israel has been firing at the institutions that Hamas controls. Many of these agencies are, as one might expect, in the middle of civilian population, especially since Gaza is one of the most densly populated areas. Even if Hamas shoots some of its puny firecrackers from amid populated areas, none of that justifies Israeli bombing of civilians.

 

[Shaihulud]

The IDF is not using smoke rounds as an intention to harm civilian. There are so many other better munition for killing people, at most the IDF can be accused of is being inconsiderate of civilian losses, but then when the civilian in question is possibly hostile... I wonder if Israel and the Palestinians love the violence, why can't they live in peace

 

[Verbose]

The IDF is not using smoke rounds as an intention to harm civilian. There are so many other better munition for killing people, at most the IDF can be accused of is being inconsiderate of civilian losses, but then when the civilian in question is possibly hostile... I wonder if Israel and the Palestinians love the violence, why can't they live in peace

Well, the Israelis already are for the most part, due to a neat trick of actual physical separation from the Palestinians.

The problem is that from the Palestinian pov, while the Israelis are pretty comprehensively insulated from having to do with the conflict and the Palestinians under normal circumstances, they are staring the separation-measures and its effects full in the face on a daily basis. (Generates the not entirely rational support of people using any means to reach out and "touch" Israelis, any Israelis, just to make sure they aren't getting away from the conflict.)

The other, more important part of the conflict is, simply put, that Israel is still sitting on land that doesn't belong to it.

 

[Patroklos]

white phosphorus commences to ignite when comes into contact with oxygen, and would continue its ignition until all oxygen in the surrounding is consumed.

It will also only contunue to burn until all the phosphorus is gone, which as designed will be five to ten minutes.

When WP comes into contact with any part of the body, the only way to save the victim's life is often amputation. WP also has the property to penetrate any material of clothings, save for perhaps a level 4, 5 Haz mat suit. Untreated WP burnt victims' skin will start peeling slowly, and eventually their bodies turn to ashes as the WP seeps through their flesh and bones.

And how is this any more harmful than any number of other weapons. HE rounds will blow your body to pieces, that doesn't mean it is banned from the battlefield. Just because a weopon has the capacity to be used in to commit warcrimes does not mean its every use in every capacity is a warcrime.

No one recalls that you did.

Anyhow it wouldn't hurt you to reply again.

I remember him doing it multiple times. You may not because your head was spinning so fast after being utterly boot stompt legally, technically, and morally within a mere page.

He should not reply again, rather you should RTFT.

While having the devastation of an anti-personnel incendiary weapon.

Really, so if I put up a purpose designed anti-personel WP weapon against this purpose designed smoke round they will yeild the same damage?

U.N, Human Rights Watch Group, Amnesty International, Red Cross and the international community certainly see the civilian casualties in Gaza as being excessive.

None of these entities have jurisdiction or are soverign, thus their opinions are actually less relevant than anyone here.

If a weapon has the identical devastation and lethal effect of an incendiary weapon, but isn't classified as an incendiary weapon, I don't know what is

I repeat:

"Really, so if I put up a purpose designed anti-personel WP weapon against this purpose designed smoke round they will yeild the same damage?"

So matches are the same thing as WP rounds? Interesting....

A bullet isn't a chemical weapon because it doesn't use chemical reaction or any chemicals to kill, its lethal capability comes from its kinetic energy and high velocity of penetrating into a target and damaging vital organs.

And that kinetic energy comes from...???

Similarly, a nuclear weapon is not a radiological device becase it actually kills via heat and kinetic blast wave, right?

 

[MobBoss]

Its designers sure did a very exceptional job "minimizing" it.

Have they? If REAL incendiary bombs were used in Gaza the place would look like Dresden.

You do know the history of Dresden dont you?

Likewise, the feeling is mutual.

Oi Vey.

It's called chemistry, haven't you learnt it in high school.......

Yup, I took chemistry in high school. We even ignited a piece of WP in my school to view its reaction. Guess what? I didnt burn for 36 hours. But it did fizz and pop a lot for a few minutes while creating a lot of smoke.

Oh right. I forgot that US military actually accepts high school drop-outs.

User specific and insulting. I probably have more time in college than you do.

I have already proven my claims

Uh...no...you havent.

Bodies being burnt into ashes by WP and skin peeling off is already proven from photos of the Fallujah battlefield.

I never said it couldnt hurt people. Again, collateral damage is an issue with any weapon in use today. Period. The fact that this can occur does not disqualify the weapons use today. As I said before, a HE artillery shell can do the same. Should it be illegal? Nope.

Although I'm not an expert, you are really just basically demonstrating your serious lack of fundamental science knowledge....

Not in the least. I am simply being factually correct in the information I am putting out and backing it up with links and proof.

While having the devastation of an anti-personnel incendiary weapon.

Again, do you know what the effects are of a purpose built incendiary weapon?

Apparently not since you seem to think the effects are the same. They arent.

Creating the best smoke...........at the costs of sacrificing innocent civilians as part of the collateral damage?

The same goes with other weapons as well. I am glad to see you defer to my point. I guess its not 'equal ridicule' like you said earlier.

The logic of this is so morally wrong I don't even know where to begin

The logic of it is war is hell.

Watch that tongue there, kid.

I am old enough to be your dad.

Yea, you sure know what the "heck" you are talking about on WP

Actually, yes, I do....and have corrected you several times in these posts so far. This has not gone unrecognized by our audience either.

No, "tremendous" is the perfectly accurate descriptive word. U.N and the international community agrees with me.

Dresden. Or the firebombing of Toyko. That would be tremendous. Gaza? Not so much.

Yes I did. I clearly stated all the non-WP chemicals that IDF can use in its smoke shells. I know that you haven't learnt chemistry in high school, but dont tell me you weren't taught to read too............

I asked you if the IDF have any munition in its inventory available to use that utilize those non-WP chemicals.

Apparently you dont know.

Do you? You probably don't know what IDF has in its smoke shell inventory either. So I can argue that it's very likely IDF has other alternative and much more impervious smoke shells but refuse to use them.

It buys its shells from the USA. That will give you a clue as to where to start.

U.N, Human Rights Watch Group, Amnesty International, Red Cross and the international community certainly see the civilian casualties in Gaza as being excessive.

When have they not seen this? They say the same exact thing in every conflict around the globe.

What, you are saying that they contructed the entire Gaza city, stole an Israeli howitzer, launched a WP M825A1 round themselves, so they can fabricated the entire video of IDF firing WP shells into Gaza?

No, I am saying that its a very, very, biased source of information in regards to this issue. You do understand this right?

If a weapon has the identical devastation and lethal effect of an incendiary weapon, but isn't classified as an incendiary weapon, I don't know what is.

It doesnt. Perhaps you need to read up on the kind of damage a REAL incendiary weapon can do. A smoke round is peanuts compared to that.

A bullet isn't a chemical weapon because it doesn't use chemical reaction or any chemicals to kill, its lethal capability comes from its kinetic energy and high velocity of penetrating into a target and damaging vital organs.

As Pat pointed out....where does its energy and velocity come from?

You sure you want to discuss science? Because I don't think you will come out of it in a good looking shape

Science is one of my best subjects, so sure.

First of all, let me educate you that there is no such thing as an HE explosive.

Errrr. Are you sure you want to discuss science?

HE simply stands for High Explosives. Calling it HE explosive is the same as calling it High Explosive explosives. See the redanduncy?

HE is a military designation to distinguish the round from an HE warhead from something else...like a sub-munition, or sabot round. Its not redundant when one understands why its called an HE round. HE rounds are primarily anti-personnel, soft target weapons. HEAT - High explosive Anti-Tank is an HE round with a shaped charge warhead meant to penetrate tank armor. Etc.

But thats ok...you continue to educate me all you want.

Secondly, HE are not incendiary weapons.

Actually, yes, they have an incendiary component, just like the smoke rounds do. They can also cause burns and start fires in the same way. In fact, an HEAT weapon penetrates tank armor by MELTING through it in a plasma/superheated state.

So can they cause fires? Abso-dam-lutely.

Nalpalms are incendiary weapons. Firebombs are incendiary weapons. Molokov cocktails are incendiary weapons. Flamethroweres are incendiary weapons.

HE are not incendiary weapons.

Neither are smoke rounds, even if they can have a secondary incendiary effect.

Like I have said earlier, I am sick and tired of you misinterpretting my texts.

Uh...that was me that said that.

US has already openly admitted of using WP as a weapon in Fallujah. It was all over the news. Look it up.

I know all about it. Much more than you do. Like I said, the two are two entirely different issues. The US in Fallujah were using the same round as we are discussing....not incendiary weapons. There was one instance of actual incendiary weapon use to take out a bridge, and it wasnt supposed to hit soft targets, but it did. Two different stories however.

Your profound denial never ceases to amaze me.

Again...not in denial...I just happen to know what I am talking about.

Well, sure you can, but the majority of the people will just view you as an unreasonable, nonsensical, insensate, nescient.............individual

Somehow, I dont think you are reading the same thread I am. Because I read the majority of the posters here seeing you that way....not me.

 

[Phlegmak]

If it looks like a duck. If it walks like a duck. If it quacks like a duck...



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

There are a lot more similiarities than there are differences, now aren't there?

Neither the US nor Israel are fascist nations. Get over it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yup, I took chemistry in high school. We even ignited a piece of WP in my school to view its reaction. Guess what? I didnt burn for 36 hours. But it did fizz and pop a lot for a few minutes while creating a lot of smoke.

Why did you give this reply to this statement

It's called chemistry, haven't you learnt it in high school.......

When it was prefaced by the following?

What you fail to understand is that the 5 to 10 minutes is the average time it takes for white phosphorus to burn in a normal oxygentated enviornment until it stablizes into phosphorus Pentoxide. If WP comes into contact with human skin or flesh it starts a chemical reaction where WP starts to burn uncontrollably through the flesh. The only way to stop the burning from spreading into the rest of the limb or body is to simply amputate the affected body part.

Your reply seems to have missed the point.

Science is one of my best subjects, so sure.

Errrr. Are you sure you want to discuss science?

Are you stating that your knowledge of science is superior to many of your other knowledges, if not most?

 

[hossam]

israel broke the ceasefire by attacking hamas's smuggling tunnels first.