I see some here justifying the missile attack because of the chemical weapons used

[gabeana]

well we used them in Iraq
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

The first account they unearthed in a magazine published by the US army. In the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry's fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: "White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

Until last week, the US state department maintained that US forces used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes". They were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters". Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position. "We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.

[Langkous]

1. Virginia Woolf

For at least 30 years, I've prayed for the peaceful resolution of conflict
Tonight I understand Virginia Woolf

[Foamfollower]

2. WP is not a chemical weapon.

[gabeana]

3. so you suggesting the article is wrong

on what criteria

"The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon."

[Foamfollower]

5. Yes.

[gabeana]

7. ok explain then

even though the U.S. govt said it was

or are just one the "Archie Bunkers" of the world who just just spout off with no backing

[Foamfollower]

11. See Post 9.

[gabeana]

16. It is a chemical weapon

http://www.weaponslaw.org/instruments/1992-chemical-weapons-convention/

For the purposes of the CWC chemical weapons are defined in Article II(1) (together or separately) as:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

'Toxic Chemical' means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere. (Art. II(2))

[Foamfollower]

22. The use of WP as a screening agent has never been considered a chemical weapon.

Under the Geneva Protocols you quoted which go back to World War I, if you are correct, the US volated the Geneva Protocols on Chemical Weapons during the Normandy Landing on June 6, 1944 as 1 in 5 mortar rounds used during that landing were WP.

Nope, you're wrong. The Geneva Protocols on Chemical Weapons went into effect after the first World War duee to the horros of gas use. At no time until the banning of WP as a cruel incendiary was any use of WP considered a violation of the Geneva Protocols.

Hell, nearly every smoke grenade issued to nearly every military organization in the world contains WP!

[metroins]

27. The article is wrong

WP isn't banned.

Anything can be a chemical, there's a reason we have a banned list.

[sarisataka]

6. Details...

[Foamfollower]

9. Under the Geneva Protocols, WP has never been considered a chemical weapon.

Under international law, the use of white phosphorus on human targets is banned as a cruel incendiary, not as a chemical weapon.

No other use of WP, such as the tactical use in Falluja as a screening agent, is banned.

[sarisataka]

15. Exactly,

While WP is very nasty stuff, is has been around a long time. It has always been considered a screening agent.

Much like .50 can machine guns are supposed to be used on equipment, not personnel. Of course canteens are equipment, belts are equipment, uniforms are equipment...

WP should not be used to cause casualties but calling WP a chemical weapon is completely misleading.

[Foamfollower]

17. Yeah, but then a moron writes a fucking article on The Guardian

and everybody start to believe the horseshit.

[gabeana]

21. I guess this is another Moron

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html

"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it."

"In the television documentary, eyewitnesses inside Fallujah during the bombardment in November last year described the terror and agony suffered by victims of the shells . Two former American soldiers who fought at Fallujah told how they had been ordered to prepare for the use of the weapons. The film and still photographs posted on the website of the channel that made the film - rainews24.it - show the strange corpses found after the city's destruction, many with their skin apparently melted or caramelised so their features were indistinguishable. Mr Ranucci said he had seen photographs of "more than 100" of what he described as "anomalous corpses" in the city

[Foamfollower]

23. See my answer to your same argument above

IT doesn't hold water, or else the smoke grenades in use by nearly every nation are violations of the Geneva Protocols due to the fact that they all contain WP.

[uponit7771]

8. In this context is it, nice try though

[Foamfollower]

10. No, it is not a chemical weapon under any context whatsoever under interenational law.

[uponit7771]

13. lol... you want to throw another qualifier on that now? Enough WP can burn a human from the inside

... and you OUGHT to know if you don't know already.

[Foamfollower]

14. Yes, WP is banned under international law for direct use on human targets as a CRUEL INCENDIARY

Not as a chemical weapon.

WP was never used directly on any human target in Iraq. It was used tactically as a screening agent and such use of WP has never been banned under international law.

The article is pure horseshit.

[uponit7771]

18. OK, then its word smithing ... it has the effect of a chemical weapon who cares the designation

... we're not talking about guns here there's no need to word smith

[Foamfollower]

24. We're talking about international law here.

If the use of WP as a screening agent were a violation of the Geneva Protocols as is alleged by the horseshit article, then every nation in the world has violated the Geneva Protocols whenever a soldier uses a smoke grenade because WP is the agent in the smoke grenade that produces the smoke used as a screening agent.

[Doodley]

38. Where does international law come into attacking another nation without a?

direct threat or a UN resolution?

[Foamfollower]

40. Your "chemical weapon" bullshit argument fell apart, so now you attempt to redirect.

I would note this is a debate tactic used by the rightwing.

[Doodley]

42. I haven't made any argument about chemical weapons. I don't like your attitude to other DUers.

[Idoru]

4. This necessitates support of the Iraq war

To make any sort of "point". You can be opposed to both, you realize?

[still_one]

29. That is exactly right. Against the Missile attack on Syria, and against our involvement in Iraq is

perfectly consistent

This is a perfect example of setting up a false equivalency

[gratuitous]

12. Had to happen today

Otherwise, it might have interrupted President Trump's round of golf.

[Solly Mack]

19. I adore you.

A lot of players inside Syria, so a response could come from multiple places and in multiple ways.

I don't trust Trump at the helm of a hot dog cart, much less events taking place now.

[Quackers]

20. White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon.

It is present in many munitions and even matches. Sarin Gas is a nerve agent that is lethal even in small concentrations. Comparing using a WP grenade or munition to Sarin Gas is silly. They are not even remotely close.

[Foamfollower]

25. Yeah, but as soon as a moron writes an opinion article on The Guardian to the contrary...

well suddenly we have some sort of chemical weapon attack every time a soldier pops a smoke grenade!!!!

[gabeana]

31. Disagree here because, is WP a chemical weapon when used in its intended use?

The way the U.S. used it in the Iraq war it was as a chemical weapon

"An analysis of the Chemical Weapons Convention has been less straightforward
in that it demanded an interpretation of multiple aspects of the treaty before the
legal status of WP could be fully determined. As the CWC does not insist that its
definition of a ‘toxic chemical’ and ‘chemical weapon’ is solely confined to military
applications, then, as we have seen, WP, due to its various harmful physiological
interactions, is de jure a toxic chemical. By fulfilling that definition it has
potential to be classed as a chemical weapon if it is then used for purposes that are
proscribed by the treaty."
However, further conditions are imposed that prevent its outright classification
as a chemical weapon. It would appear that WP only becomes a chemical weapon
insofar as it is applied in a prohibited manner. Thus, although WP deployment as a
smokescreen may have adverse physiological consequences, unless its application
was a conscious attempt to take advantage of its toxic properties, then its use is one
that is not prohibited. Thus contextually it is not a chemical weapon.
There is a clear need for further insight into the international legal status of WP,
with particular input from those States involved in conflict or whose armed forces
are employed on extraterritorial duty. Nevertheless, current research into strengthening
the Chemical Weapons Convention appears to overlook the flawed flexibility
relating to the purposes by which chemical weapons may be legitimately used
and should attempt to address the issue of munitions that have a secondary toxic
effect even when their use is not dependent on the weapon’s inherent toxicity. 86 It
is an issue that has to be decisively addressed if chemical weapons are going to
receive adequate prohibition."

http://www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/White-Phosphorus-and-the-law-of-war.pdf

[Foamfollower]

39. Now you're pulling up a bulshit argument

This argument has been used before and it has never held up because contextually, the way the WP was used in Fallujah is EXACTLY THE SAME as a soldier popping a smoke grenade, which uses white phosphorus as the agent to produce the smoke, on the field of battle. IT was used as a screening agent which has ALWAYS been 100% legitimate under international law.

It's complete bullshit.

And since you pulled this argument off a blog, it holds precisely no weight.

[gabeana]

44. Nah it is not

but your true colors are showing,

[still_one]

26. Those who are justifying the missile attack here, were AGAINST what the U.S. did in Iraq. In fact

that position would be perfectly consistent with what is happening

This looks like another false equivalency

[sarisataka]

28. Chemical vs incendiary weapons

A chemical weapon (CW) is a specialized munition that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm on humans. According to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), "the term chemical weapon may also be applied to any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Munitions or other delivery devices designed to deliver chemical weapons, whether filled or unfilled, are also considered weapons themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon

Incendiary weapons, incendiary devices or incendiary bombs are weapons designed to start fires or destroy sensitive equipment using fire (and sometimes used as anti-personnel weaponry), that use materials such as napalm, thermite, magnesium powder, chlorine trifluoride, or white phosphorus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_device

Further:

Signatory states are bound by Protocol III of the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons which governs the use of incendiary weapons:

-prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (effectively a reaffirmation of the general prohibition on attacks against civilians in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions)
-prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets located within concentrations of civilians and loosely regulates the use of other types of incendiary weapons in such circumstances.

Protocol III states though that incendiary weapons do not include:

-Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminates, tracers, smoke or signaling systems;
-Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armor-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.

ibid

[gabeana]

32. It is how we use it

defines it as a chemical weapon, if used as an incendiary weapon it is not but used to harm people then it is a chemical weapon

like one of the articles posted stated when we use it is not but when the other guy does we call it a chemical weapon

[sarisataka]

33. It is the mechanism of how the weapon

inflicts casualties is what determines whether or not it is a chemical weapon. Nerve agents such as sarin and VX, blister agents such as mustard gas are chemical weapons. Their toxic properties are what damages people.

Incendiaries such as napalm and WP are not toxic themselves. They cause heat burns to cause casualties which classes them as conventional weapons. The use of incendiaries is regulated under various treaties but they are separate from chemical weapons. Someone saying they should be reviewed to consider them chemical weapons in some cases does not change their status.

[gabeana]

34. I guess that is the debate then

Having previously classified WP as a de jure chemical weapon, due to its negative
interactions with human physiology, then the first part of Article II(9)(c) – military
purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons – would provide a blanket
prohibition on the use of WP regardless of the military context

http://www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/White-Phosphorus-and-the-law-of-war.pdf

[sarisataka]

36. That is the opinion

of two professors, that WP is a de jure chemical weapon, not any international treaty recognition. While they make some valid points and correctly point out that WP may not be used indiscriminately, their conclusion carries no weight in the several treaties and conferences which comprise the Laws of War.

[gabeana]

37. agree to disagree but good discusion

anyway

[milestogo]

30. I thought the US used DU (depleted Uranium) in Falujah

and that was the cause so many birth defects in years to come.

[Lurks Often]

43. Depleted Uranium is used in armor piercing rounds

Primarily in the A-10's 30mm cannon and the M-1A1 Abrams 120 mm cannon. Depleted Uranium is used because it is extremely dense which is an asset in piercing armor. Any element dense enough to penetrate armor is likely to cause similar health issues in people.

[Alice11111]

35. Hillary called for taking Assad out when he had killed 7000 people before Putin filled the vacuum.

Putin took her out. He got more than he bargained for. Now, Assad has killed between 500,000 and 700,000 or more, and we have to deal w Russia, Iran, Hamas, Hezballa, and more.

[jmg257]

41. Oh - we used Willie Peter in Iraq. When Iraqi insurgents want to launch a tomahawk strike at us,

they should have at it.

"We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.

In the mean time, Assad has used/is using sarin gas chemical weapons against civilians to kill 100s of women and children, and has killed thousands more.

Fuck him.