[Newsbot]

Title: Hamas attacks may be war crimes: rights group
Category: World
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2009-08-06 21:44:52

[martin14]

wow, must be a slow day for HRW if they are only getting to this now...

$1:

"The fact that it [Hamas] is only now on their agenda exposes their biased priorities," he said.

aint that the truth; something perhaps about the several thousand rockets before the last conflict ?
Oh right, thats nothing..

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I have just one question to ask. When in hell did Willy Pete get banned? Or was it banned along with other chemical type weapons?

[KorbenDeck]

Muslims spend lots of money on PR to try and keep these kinds of stories out of the news. What is worse is that many westerners eat the PR BS up and jump on the anti-Israel bandwagon.

[ridenrain]

Who would have guessed that sending thousands if rockets crudely aimed at cities might be a human rights violation.

.. now we just need to wait untill the inevitable "well so few Israilies were killed" chimes in. Who would have guessed that after decades of being shelled and bombed, they might have become pretty good at ducking and covering?

[ridenrain]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I have just one question to ask. When in hell did Willy Pete get banned? Or was it banned along with other chemical type weapons?

Yeah, I like that one too. Air burst smoke shells are now chemical weapons. I guess someone saw an old episode of MASH.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I still laugh when I think of the tanker in WW2 that "took out" a German Tiger with his Sherman by firing a WP round at it, after his first AP round bounced off of it. It was freakin brilliant lol

[Hyack]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I have just one question to ask. When in hell did Willy Pete get banned? Or was it banned along with other chemical type weapons?

The Chemical Weapons Convention does not designate WP as a chemical weapon, various groups consider it to be one as white phosphorus burns quite fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire. The controversy around white phosphorus lies in the risk to civilians. The purposeful use of white phosphorus against civilian populations is a clear violation of international law.

[ridenrain]

You didn't include the first paragrph of that Wkipedia entry:

$1:

White phosphorus (WP) is a flare- and smoke-producing agent and an incendiary agent that is made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus. The main utility of white phosphorus munitions is to create smokescreens to mask movement from the enemy, or to mask his fire. In contrast to other smoke-causing munitions, WP burns quickly causing an instant bank of smoke. As a result of this, WP munitions are very common -- particularly as smoke grenades for infantry; loaded in defensive grenade dischargers on tanks and other armored vehicles; or as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars.

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

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Hyack Hyack:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I have just one question to ask. When in hell did Willy Pete get banned? Or was it banned along with other chemical type weapons?

The Chemical Weapons Convention does not designate WP as a chemical weapon, various groups consider it to be one as white phosphorus burns quite fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire. The controversy around white phosphorus lies in the risk to civilians. The purposeful use of white phosphorus against civilian populations is a clear violation of international law.

As opposed to using regular munitions???? What the hell's the difference when it's civilians? lol
Not takin a shot at you Hyack, I just think it's a little ridiculous they needed to spell it out. Makes it sound like you can drop napalm on them, or HE but noooo WP, that's a no-no. Did the international lawmakers break it down by weapon?

[ShepherdsDog]

Gee who'd have thought that terrorists would be guilty of commiting criminal acts??

[Hyack]

Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, an annex to the Geneva Conventions, prohibits making civilians the target of incendiary weapons (such as white phosphorous), and prohibits attacking a military target “located within a concentration of civilians” with such weapons. It does not ban the weapon.

[ShepherdsDog]

intentionally embedding military facilities within civilian populations should be a war crime as well.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Hyack Hyack:

Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, an annex to the Geneva Conventions, prohibits making civilians the target of incendiary weapons (such as white phosphorous), and prohibits attacking a military target “located within a concentration of civilians” with such weapons. It does not ban the weapon.

Ahhhhhh ok, thanks Hyack, that clears it up for me. Cheers
I didn't think WP was banned as a weapon, and I couldn't agree more with the prohibitions on it.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

intentionally embedding military facilities within civilian populations should be a war crime as well.

Military targets and military facilities are not necessarily the same thing.
Hundreds if not thousands of factories located in North American cities could and would be considered legitimate military targets.