- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- world@lemmy.world
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- world@lemmy.world
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Israeli government said they didn’t. Evidence suggests they did. Hmm. 🤔
It turns out: governments lie.
Shocking, like when I realized water is wet.
Who would have thought they’d lie to us - shocking! /s
The weapon of heroes.
I don’t really know anything about this stuff. What makes this worse than other things?
The article says Israel never signed anything saying they would not use it.
These “forbidden” substances are usually too hard for a medic to treat and kill slowly. In this case, the thing stick and can burn till the bones, and even after the initial impact the remnants can still ignite. It is just a mess in the body.
Upon contact, white phosphorus can burn people, thermally and chemically, down to the bone as it is highly soluble in fat and therefore in human flesh. White phosphorus fragments can exacerbate wounds even after treatment and can enter the bloodstream and cause multiple organ failure. Already dressed wounds can reignite when dressings are removed and the wounds are re-exposed to oxygen. Even relatively minor burns are often fatal. For survivors, extensive scarring tightens muscle tissue and creates physical disabilities. The trauma of the attack, the painful treatment that follows, and appearance-changing scars lead to psychological harm and social exclusion.
Just to reiterate, cuz it really sounds like some sci-fi alien shit:
Already dressed wounds can reignite when dressings are removed and the wounds are re-exposed to oxygen.
Think Napalm’s meaner acidic cousin
What makes this worse than other things?
I think it’s good to read the article, they explain a lot of it and how Israel is refusing to comply with its ban as a weapon.
Sorry, you were right, it doesn’t explain too much in the article, but this from HRW explains it in much better details: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/questions-and-answers-israels-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-and-lebanon
I caused confusion, it was my bad.
Read the article? Preposterous.
What’s next? Reading up on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before jumping to an unnuanced conclusion?
No thanks. I think we should cheerlead for who we consider the ‘good guys’ based on nothing more than tiktok videos and what anonymous people on twitter say.
Says the person who didn’t even read the article thoroughly enough to catch OP’s mistake before the edit. Everyone is always looking for a way to feel superior. 😂
Reasons that the use of white phosphorous is considered worse than conventional munitions listed in the article (which you also didn’t read):
… the use of such weapons puts civilians at risk of serious and long-term injury … white phosphorus smokescreen munitions used during its 2008-2009 offensive in Gaza … drew war crimes allegations … Because it has legal uses, white phosphorus is not banned as a chemical weapon under international conventions, but it can cause serious burns and start fires. … is considered an incendiary weapon under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons. The protocol prohibits using incendiary weapons against military targets located among civilians, although Israel has not signed it and is not bound by it.
The HRW article goes into a bit more detail about how severe these serious injuries are, what happened during the 2008-2009 offensive that drew war crimes allegations, and Israel’s current stance on the use of white phosphours.
You’re welcome.
Preposterous? Didn’t you read it? It says white phosphorus. Big difference! /s
All I know is that there was a little fighting before, and now there is a lot of fighting.
BAD! BAD FIGHTING!
Chemical rounds meant to cause injury are banned in the Geneva convention. It’s not a separate treaty.
If it’s being used as a smokescreen, a very common use, there is nothing at all bad about it.
Edit: People seem to think that it’s common use as a smoke screen is a problem. What, specifically, is the issue when it is being used as a smokescreen?
deleted by creator
I have no idea if they did or not, but Russia was also accused of using it and most of the videos purporting its use turned out to be magnesium, which also burns white, produces white smoke, and sets pretty much everything it touches on fire.
So far the 40 beheaded babies turned out not to exist. I trust very few non-expert reports of things happening.
WaPo confirmed it. And an air bursting Magnesium round is also a war crime.
WaPo confirmed it.
Where?
WP burns yellower, and magnesium is very rare because it’s expensive and complicated. WP auto-ignites in air, magnesium has to be separately lit by the delivery system. You can’t practically put a magnesium incendiary in an artillery shell, what you see in Gaza is mostly artillery.
And suddenly switching to magnesium would be an absolute psycho move. The way you treat a WP burn is pouring tons of water on it, magnesium explodes on contact with water.
Wait until they start rolling out the space lasers
They probably used it, in 2013 Israel said they would phase out the use of WP but is not clear when this project would finish, also WP was used in literally every conflict before this by Israel. It is also important to note that WP is not forbidden by international law, but only close to civilians.
IMO is obvious that Israel would use this kind of weapon, IDK why ppl are so impressed. They are using the same tactics used by Russia of trying cut supply of food, fuel and water supplies in order to destroy the morality of everyone there.
And this is why I hate, while sharing all the beliefs of the discourse, USA and and west Europe, because what they say publicly does not match what they do.
At least China say openly that they want to protect their stuff, even when their stuff is not exactly their. USA and west Europe, in other hand, claim a moral superiority to their decisions while justify killing civilians with the Hammas violence, if you call it out they complain about whataboutism, dude, they are ignoring international law.
WP is not forbidden by international law, but only close to civilians
But isn’t basically everywhere in Gaza close to civilians? Gaza city has about the same population density as Boston.
Yes it is, I’m not saying the opposite, it was just a fact I found interesting to share.
Pro tip: you can’t head off claims of whataboutism my preemptively trivializing them. It doesn’t work that way.
WP is forbidden as an incendiary weapon, not as a smoke screen or for illumination. I know the distinction seems silly, but there are actually no WP incendiary weapons in NATO inventories anymore. I don’t know about Israel, but I assume the same is true since they have a lot of the same supply chains.
There is a pretty big functional difference though. WP incendiary rounds are basically cluster munitions intended to contain a solid chunk of relatively slow burning WP so that it can settle on objects and remain in contact for an extended period while it burns. This is why it’s such a horrific weapon - because it will literally burn through roofs and people and keep burning.
WP smoke and illumination rounds can obviously light fires as well, but they are intended to burn much quicker to produce greater volumes of smoke and light. While you definitely don’t want to get a coating of burning WP powder on your roof, it’s much less dangerous than a golfball sized sub muntion which will spend a solid 10 minutes at 3000F.
None of the alleged videos of Israel using WP show incendiary rounds IMO. They are all illumination rounds. Though they do often seem to be deployed in a way which is more likely to make fires. Russia does the same thing. They use illumination rounds in a direct fire capacity to blind and discombobulate. This is still probably a war crime.
WP with a design meant to create shrapnel is absolutely banned. The only legal Phosphorus rounds are ones that have a small bursting charge after striking the ground.
But you know, Israel is the victim here right?
There is not a single sentence in the article that suggests that Israel is using phosphor as a weapon. As the article stated - it is routinely used as smokescreen or to mark areas.
Israel always says it uses it for that but there are numerous cases of them targeting civilians with it on purpose
It’s good to look at the whole paragraph:
From December 27, 2008, to January 18, 2009, during Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli military fired approximately 200 ground-launched white phosphorus munitions into populated areas of Gaza. Israeli forces relied particularly on 155mm M825E1 artillery projectiles, which send burning phosphorus wedges 125 meters in all directions, giving them a broad area effect. Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the Israeli military used the shells only to create smokescreens. Whatever their ostensible purpose, however, Human Rights Watch found dozens of civilian casualties in the six incidents it documented. The white phosphorus shells also damaged civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse, and a hospital.
Israel always “says” something then “does” something totally different with it.
Look - HRW is a biased against Israel on principle. Unless there is a second impartial confirmation, you shouldn’t take anything they claim as anything but speculation.
How is the HRW biased against Israel? Back up that claim first.
How is the HRW biased against Israel? Back up that claim first.
So you have read the Wikipedia Article I included with my last post and don’t find it sufficient?
I read it. David Bernstein the comic book writer has an agenda against HRW. Also the criticisms do not dispute the accuracy of the reporting from HRW. Instead they attack the HRW for not siding with Israel.
Also there are personal attacks on the HRW investigator who accurately reported on WP because he called some piece of Nazi paraphernalia “cool” once.
No, sorry, I actually didn’t for some reason.
And now that I have I’m even more convinced it’s bullshit. Seems like Israel consistently wants to silence people report in on its war crimes.
By using it in a heavy populated area, using it as a smokescreen will cause huge damage to civilians, and they can’t be treated easily.
Not to mention that we can couple this with Israel cutting off water, electricity, fuel, and humanitarian aid off Gaza. What is the result?
So what is the practical Alternative to create a smokescreen or mark an area that does not involve the use of white phosphor?
Lots.
Like what? „Lots“ is not a practical alternative.
I went to Wikipedia, seems like you can do it without that in lots of ways.
WP is ugly stuff, and militaries the world round use the '“It’s just a smokescreen” excuse.
In every case, it’s blatant lies. WP is useful as a smokescreen, but much more useful as a means of flushing people from cover. Conveniently, the process for blinding an enemy entrenched position with smoke and burning them out with WP is pretty similar, and governments love plausible deniability.
The pictures alone tell the story. The shells are air bursting which is better for shrapnel distribution, not smoke distribution. It’s basically a giant neon sign saying they’re committing war crimes.
