D
dan e 1980
Guest
but how do we know what it was used for? because of the offical story?
i think it was a summary of the protocol that i posted. there are parts that don't support my case? explain.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
but how do we know what it was used for? because of the offical story?
i think it was a summary of the protocol that i posted. there are parts that don't support my case? explain.
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
but how do we know what it was used for? because of the offical story?
The official story, the movies, the pictures, the descriptions etc.
WP isn't very toxic. If the US was going to go to the bother of breaking the CWC, they have a lot of blister agents left that would do a much better job.
i think it was a summary of the protocol that i posted. there are parts that don't support my case? explain.
Your google-fu is weak.
Here's the full text of the Protocol:
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Protocol III
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Geneva, 10 October 1980
Article 1
Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol:
Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
"Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
"Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
"Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
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.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
Unless you can prove that the US deliberately targeted those civilians, their actions were permitted under that protocol. All they have to do is try to mimise the effects on civilians, not eliminate them.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
the fine print still doesn't make it ok.
regular folk were killed in a horrible fashion. weather it was done on purpose or not, it still happened.
but aren't those banned?
regular folk were killed in a horrible fashion. weather it was done on purpose or not, it still happened.
The official story, the movies, the pictures, the descriptions etc.
WP isn't very toxic. If the US was going to go to the bother of breaking the CWC, they have a lot of blister agents left that would do a much better job.
but aren't those banned?
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
regular folk were killed in a horrible fashion. weather it was done on purpose or not, it still happened.
Yes, it happened, and I feel sorry for any civilians caught in the battle. It's unfortunate when that happens.
If they were insurgents, I have no sympathy at all for them. They were hostis humanis generis, and deserved whatever they got.
but aren't those banned?
Yes, but so is WP if used for it's toxic properties, and not it's incendiary ones. For that matter, oxygen would be banned if used for it's toxic properties. The CWC bans anything that's used for toxic properties.
G
ganjavih
Guest
Yes, but so is WP if used for it's toxic properties, and not it's incendiary ones.
Well, the US now admits it was used for its toxic properties as well... in a populated area no less, which is clearly illegal.
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
Where do they admit this?
G
ganjavih
Guest
You're right, they haven't admitted exploiting its toxic properties even though the evidence seems to indicate they did. Nevertheless, the use of WP in populated areas, which occurred, is illegal.
The BBC quoted Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague, as saying that the use of white phosphorus as a toxic or caustic agent would make it illegal under the chemical weapons convention. The Pentagon contends that it uses the weapon for its incendiary heat and not for toxic properties.
From: Pentagon says it used phosphorus in Fallujah in 2004
The BBC quoted Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague, as saying that the use of white phosphorus as a toxic or caustic agent would make it illegal under the chemical weapons convention. The Pentagon contends that it uses the weapon for its incendiary heat and not for toxic properties.
From: Pentagon says it used phosphorus in Fallujah in 2004
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
Nevertheless, the use of WP in populated areas, which occurred, is illegal.
Illegal by what standard? The Conventional weapons convention on incendiary weapons permits attacks on military targets in civilian concentrations, as long as attempts are made to minimise civilian casualties.
The Hague and Geneva conventions permit attacks on military objectives in civilian areas, as long as it's militarily necessary.
G
ganjavih
Guest
The Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons went into effect in 1983. Protocol III of the convention prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians. The protocol also forbids their use against military targets within concentrations of civilians, except when the targets are clearly separated from civilians and "all feasible precautions" are taken to avoid civilian casualties.
It's very easy to say, oops, we tried to avoid civilian casualties but oh well.
I'm sure many Iraqis feel the same way about the foreign invaders who illegally entered and occupied their country.
It's very easy to say, oops, we tried to avoid civilian casualties but oh well.
They were hostis humanis generis, and deserved whatever they got.
I'm sure many Iraqis feel the same way about the foreign invaders who illegally entered and occupied their country.
B
bizorky
Guest
^Including the ones that choose to strap on some explosives and go to mosques to kill and maim civilians as an act of political manipulation?
G
ganjavih
Guest
^Including the ones that choose to strap on some explosives and go to mosques to kill and maim civilians as an act of political manipulation?
Yeah, I'm sure they do too.
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
It's very easy to say, oops, we tried to avoid civilian casualties but oh well.
I see. Is that coming from your extensive combat experience?
G
ganjavih
Guest
I see. Is that coming from your extensive combat experience?
No, it comes from the images women and children burned down to the bone.
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
No, it comes from the images women and children burned down to the bone.
All you can tell from that are that women and children's bodies were burnt.
For all you know, they could have been:
i) Combatants
ii) Killed by insurgents
iii) Dead before their bodies were burnt