Middle Eastern states gearing up for Armageddon

Maybe they're worried that they'll be colonized by Westerners for their resources; or that one of the bigger, more powerful countries in the region will have a headstrong dictator who will start invading all of them. Or that a bunch of Westerners who live in completely different continents altogether will be oppressed for two millenia and nearly exterminated, so they decide to come back home and re-enact the Old Testament. Or maybe hoarding all your country's oil wealth, political power and educational opportunities while your subjects turn to hyper-violent, med-i-eeeeval interpretations of your shared religious faith makes you a little paranoid.

 

Or maybe they're sensing the US will be able to guarantee less and less as the years pass by and are gearing for an inevitable confrontation (or as a deterrent) involving the region's strongest powers.

 

This...also Iran has made it quite clear what they will do if they were to be attacked, while Israel in the last few years have shown that they won't sit back, with or without the US's support...

 

A few factors to consider here:

1) Israel is not a good example here. They are the 11th largest arms exporter in the world so, naturally, they will purchase less (for comparison, China is 12th exporter). Also, Israel is the owner of somewhere between 50 and 200 nuclear weapons and have been known to use chemical weapons in the past. Since they are in the Middle East, they will drive up weapons spending each time they flex their muscles.

2) This is basically the second time ever the UAE makes such a purchase. It is not the norm, it is by far the exception and the outlier. Again, Israel spends that amount annually. This was a one-off purchase by the UAE.

3) The spending so far has been a super positive thing. The technology has clearly been mostly "defensive" in nature.

I know I may be overreacting here but I have to be quite clear. The correct statement is that a lot of Middle Eastern countries are beefing up their ability to defend themselves yet are nowhere within the realm of Israeli military capability. Saudi Arabia spends a lot of money to help the US protect them (through the dozens of bases in the GCC) as well as Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, the UAE, Oman and Qatar.

Saudi also acts kind of like a big brother to the rest of the GCC states so it has to keep an eye out for the smaller GCC countries just in case.

Some good pages on wiki:

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

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

 

Document, please? And something more substantial than Hamas claiming the IDF is distributing sex gum to corrupt young Palestinian women.

 

What is weird as far as Arab states attacking Israel with nuclear weapons is that even relatively small detonations will kill off thousands of Muslims, if not hundreds of thousands, in surrounding areas. The Palestinians have to be worried about a nuclear attack on Israel.

Also, the reaction time before forced defensive launch is only minutes because of the proximity of combatant countries. That means any posturing can touch off an exchange nobody wants. The worst part of it is that U.S. presidents, past and president, have been powerless to stop nuclear proliferation in the Mideast.

 

you mean they've been unwilling to stop it. proliferation in the Middle East starts with Israel. they have the bomb, so everyone else feels they need to get it one. if you honestly want to stop proliferation you start with Israel and remove the reason why Iran and others feel they need to arm themselves.

Israel really doesn't need to be nuclear, the US would guarantee its safety if it means bankrupting our nation or costing half our armed forces and use of nuclear weapons on Israel would be tantamount to nuking New York City after we'd finishing bombing Iran to the stone age we'd probably hand over the entire country to Israel as reparations

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/israel-gaza-phosphorus-civilians

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5556027.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7831424.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/2837671.stm

http://www.vtjp.org/report/overview.htm

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/brooks.php?articleid=2957

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7823078.stm


There is, ofcourse, the possibility that everyone else in the world is wrong and that Israel is telling the truth while actively attempting to block international media from these places.

Also, yes it is:

Chemical warfare (CW) involves using the toxic properties of chemical substances as weapons to kill, injure or incapacitate an enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_3_substances_(CWC)

 

Also, no worries about the sex gum. Maybe we can send them to the Israeli Government's counselling program.

 

Starting from the beginning - if white phosphorous counts as a chemical weapon, then every army in the world uses chemical weapons with their trinitrotoluene warheads. Legally and in common parlance, phosphorous is an incendiary weapon, and is specifically mentioned in the treaty on that issue. And if you read the treaty, it basically says that if you claim you are using it for smoke, it is perfectly legal to use.

When you go to websites and read accounts of it being prohibited under any conditions, or being viewed by law as a chemical weapon, that is more a function of something between what the authors wish was true and good old fashioned muckraking. I can find any number of websites that claim it is a banned chemical weapon. It is not, however.

From Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons :

[rquoter]
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Protocol III
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.

"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;
[/rquoter]

Then, a couple of the links simply say that Israel has chemical weapons. They say nothing about using them.

The other accounts, on the other hand, would be valid if they had the slightest bit of evidence. But since they don't, and given the PR campaigns on both sides, believing personal stories is folly. The gum story is the perfect example of the way both sides flat out make stuff up. And especially when you start talking about "mystery gasses" that match no known chemical weapons symptoms, you have to really want to believe it to believe it. It is not that difficult to get documentation (if the Kurds could get evidence out of Halabja, the Palestinians would be able to get evidence past Israelis with whom they are very clearly separate) and if they had any evidence, the US wouldn't have been able to suppress the UN resolutions.

And as far as the schedule 3 precursors, they are on the list as precursors to organophosphate. They are unrelated to smoke phosphorous.

So I really still don't see the slightest proof that Israel has used chemical weapons, unless you choose to stack the deck linguistically because its Israel.

 

Just as a "for instance", if we reclassify white phosphorous as a chemical weapon universally, then when we go back and look at Iran's Imposed War, Iranian forces used white phosphorous from the get go.

In that case, we need to rewrite the narrative, so that Saddam Hussein bravely held out in the face of chemical weapons attacks, waiting 8 years before he responded in kind with mustard and phosgene (or whatever it was he used).

 

Ottomaton,

I wrote a whole lot of stuff. I was extremely irritated and dissapointed by your need to blurt out that last sentence. Classless IMO.

The munition is the incediary weapon. The moment the chemical is used to attack civilians, it is a chemical weapon. I trust you don't need proof that it was used and that your supreme research skills will easily locate the report which reprimands the responsibile parties for "exceeding their authority" and ordering the use of white phosphorus in civilian-populated areas, which, mind you, is a war crime.

 

lol i wonder how many shekels per hour they're paying the 'army of bloggers' nowadays :grin:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html

 

If you don't think tons of stuff gets written and said about Israel just because it is Israel, I'm not sure what planet you live on. Noted BBS Jew hater "pippendagimp" would be a prime and relevant example. I personally think the bigotry is pretty classless, but to each their own.

For instance, when I look at Israel in Gaza, and the USA in the Battle of Fallujah and I see two nearly identical battles - if you look at the Battle of Fallujah there are a whole lot more civilians dead, actually. And the USA regularly used white phosphorous in Iraq and Fallujah. The USA actually was pretty clear that they were using Phosphorous not only for smoke, but also as an offensive weapon in Fallujah. But Fallujah made the news for a couple of months. It only still comes up in academic settings. Meanwhile everyday people in the ME are still foaming at the mouth about Gaza.

Why is the disparity?

Again, according to the relevant treaty, it isn't. The Israeli army fired shells in front of its army for smoke effects at the soldiers advanced.

Perfectly legal. You don't have to like it. Quite honestly, the treaty was neutered from the beginning. But the treaty is very clear.

[rquoter]
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

[/rquoter]

As such, that single clause invalidates all the additional treaty language about incendary weapons in populated areas. The treaty makes clear right at the beginning that phosphorous for smoke isn't considered an "incendary weapon" even if it lights fires as a side effect of creating smoke.

Phosphorous doesn't create chemical burns. It creates thermal burns, from the ignition of phosphorous - "exothermic oxidation". It would have been a violation of the incendiary weapons convention if Israel were randomly launching shells with no Israeli troops nearby. The were not. There was 100% correlation between troop movements and smoke shell use.

A chemical weapon would create chemical burns, like lye, or lewisite. This is what happens when you get a bunch of very passionate people at Amnesty International and HWR who don't know the first thing about science and law making proclamations about those subjects. HWR, in fact, admits that Israel used WP for smoke. According to the law, this is 100% legal, but HWR still claims, somehow, that Israel broke the law without any more explanation.

For more, see:

http://www.gonzagajil.org/content/view/194/26/

You mean, the report written by the guy who said before he got the job (and in fact got the job because he said it) that Israel had committed war crimes? I don't know how the justice system works in Dubai, but in the USA when the judge declares a verdict before hearing evidence, it is pretty much a clear case of judicial impropriety, and the verdict would be thrown out.

But if it is as you say a clear violation of the law, you should have no problem quoting me the law directly from original treaty sources, right? I eagerly await your response.

 

1) What other people do is their own business.I was referring to you indirectly saying I'm making these claims just because it is Israel and implying that I wouldn't do so for another country.

Also, I don't care about Fallujah over here. I don't know anything about the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah.

2) We both know there is a grey area. When there is a grey area in the law, a judge resorts to interpretation of the law. I defer judgement to the official spokesperson of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which monitors the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Here is the law:

So it is either the chemical or the precursor. See your words:

Which leaves:

"... except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes."

I eagerly await you showing me from two non-Israeli sources that they are of consistent type, quantity and purpose. I believe you specifically said ONE HUNDRED percent correlated with movement of troops. I want to see this 100%. I also want to see that the quantity is fit for the purpose you are claiming.

Here in Dubai, we care about people, not words and letters. Also, we recognize that a government isn't necessarily the same as its people, unless secularly and democratically voted in.

 

Yeah, actually that comment was in response to the profusion of anti-Israeli screeds on the internet on the internet, including several of the ones you listed as "proof". It was not made with respect to you, though I guess if you wish to vigorously defend the idea that nefarious baby-eating Israels are using spooky "mystery gasses" for fun on Palestinians, I might be willing to extend it to you.

My concern is that you treat the issue of Israeli use of white phosphorous with the same level of concern you treat other white phosphorous incidents. If you get upset when the Israelis use it, but not when anybody else does, then the variable becomes Israel, not white phosphorous. If you truly find white phosphorous to be a chemical weapons atrocity, you should be consistent in the belief. If you're just looking for another reason to get mad at Israel, not so much.

Then you will obviously be interested in this document from that organization saying:

[rquoter]
These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons

Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy. Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use.

[/rquoter]

I'm not trying to be rude and I'm not trying to be smarmy. Maybe it is just late at night, but I am really having trouble trying to understand what you are asking. Could you possibly ask the question another way?

Generally, the point I was making in what you responded to is that the listed precursor chemicals aren't used in the production of allotropic white phosphorous.

They do both contain phosphorous. My assumption is that that was why you included that link to the banned precursor chemicals, since the list of banned chemicals contains several compounds containing phosphorous. If that is the case, you are in error. The presence of the common element of phosphorous doesn't make them related. An analogy would be that both salt water and mustard gas contain chlorine. But that is as far as their association goes. One doesn't make mustard gas from seawater, or vice versa.

White Phosphorous is an allotropic form of Phosphorous. It's precursor is calcium phosphate, an exceptionally common rock, which is prepared with the application of heat. Neither allotropic phosphorous, nor calcium phosphate are on that list. The list of banned chemicals, therefore, is in no way related to anything having to do with white phosphorous, and is entirely irrelevant to any conversations of that subject.

If I am entirely wrong and you weren't trying to say that the precursor chemicals were related to white phosphorous, please let me know. And if that is the case, could you explain why you included the link to prohibited precursor chemicals?

It's relation to troop movements is detailed in the footnotes of the Gonzaga Journal of International Law paper. As far as "quantity being fit", perhaps you could provide me instruction as to what a fit quantity would be. In my understanding, if you want smoke, the application would be done in a piecemeal fashion, until things seem obscured. I am not aware of any particular formula and I don't know to what variables the proper rationing of smoke is attached.

Edit: A quick reference to some WWII era artillery manuals bears this out - that you basically fire for effect until things are obscured, but things may have changed in the time since then.

Any expertise you have on such matters would be appreciated.

Well, I wouldn't say that is always true. And given you are ruled by an Emir, I wouldn't say that necessarily everybody shares your concern for democratic, secular rulers. But in any case, the fact that you don't like Israel should have nothing to do with your judgment of a black and white question of whether they violated the law, and it appears to me from this distant imperfect vantage point, that that is not the case.

 

Until the philosophy which hold one race
Superior and another inferior
Is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned
Everywhere is war, me say war

That until there are no longer first class
And second class citizens of any nation
Until the color of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the color of his eyes
Me say war

That until the basic human rights are equally
Guaranteed to all, without regard to race
Dis a war

That until that day
The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion
To be pursued, but never attained
Now everywhere is war, war

...

Bob Marley

 

double

 

triple


Seriously, is a blank post what one makes when he's speachless?