Hit reply on the "blank" post. The full text of what I wrote will show up. It just doesn't show up in the thread. I'm hoping it will fix itself. For the "double" I copy and posted the entire text, and it still showed up as blank.
I didn't realize BBC and the Times Online were not good enough for you, my bad. Perhaps we should refer to globalsecurity.com as the impartial source of info? Your need to insert little low-blows in each of your posts is amusing and a bit sad. I'm done responding to those. That is my concern as well. Which is why I'd like to not comment on the Fallujah situation, I have no knowledge of it even happening till you mentioned it. I know of no other use of white phosphorus as a means to burn civilians or, by your thinking, to create smoke apparently in total disregard for civilians. I am in fact not interested in the document for the purpose you intend because it specifically stipulates that "the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use." which I am disagreeing with here. It does not address the issue. I, too, was wondering if you are being deliberately obtuse. I guess not. You are right though, I thought it was in the list because I thought that you stated that it is, I should have re-checked what you said. My bad. Here is what I am saying in summary: It is not LISTED. It meets the conditions to be listed. It not being listed (falling into a grey area/loop hole) has been adressed by the OPCW, the implementing body of the CWC, and by by Mark Cantora in the article/journal you posted. All of them have said the same thing in that it should be listed and, if the intended use was to target civilians, then the use of it is illegal. I have not seen adequate evidence that it was not intended to target civillians. This is especially important because of Israel's behavior in compltely denying the use and then admitting its use after the war, illegal/incendiary or otherwise. Their claims shifted significantly. Additionally, upto 20 shells were fired into a populated civilian area. No human being can consider that a proportionate amount to use, knowing that it is a populated neighbourhood. Schools, hospitals, UN building. There is enough evidence for suspicion. But no, the IDF magically discovered that there were HAMAS troops everywhere they shot, all were from ground or naval bases, and a complte shift in their statements. An inadequate treaty does not, for me, define whether this was a war crime, and whether or not the toxic properties of White Phosphorus were used in total disregard of the civilian population of Palestine. The journal you posted addresses the inadequacy of the law, the OPCW spokesperson has clearly stated that if used with intent it is illegal. The fact that you are citing a journal which says the law is inadequate, yet appear to be siding with the IDF on this is baffling. If you will be satisfied to hear "according to the inadequate law, Israel did not use a chemical weapon and there is no evidence showing intent to harm civilians but also no evidence to show the presence of hamas troops in come cited locations" you can have that. It's yours. Now go tell these people that you fought for and won this argument: http://www.hrw.org/en/node/81726/section/5 It is not detailed. All I see is one instance stating that, in the absence of Hamas troops, they fired them into populated neighbourhoods to create smokescreens for their own troops. This does not address all the incidents, nor does it explain why smoke is needed in a neighbourhood with no hamas fighters. What were they hiding from? For the record, before you make another of your cynical comments, I am not in any way saying that they fired white phosphorus at palestinian civilians at will at any point in time. I am saying that they fired the white phosphorus, at times, in the presence of Hamas troops with full knowledge that the population density of the area would create a situation where civilians and civilian objects will be destroyed in order to flush out a few Hamas troops and the dismissal of international media contributed to the ambiguity of evidence for or against this. OH REALLY? He was cleared of the torture and rape in a trial. When Human Rights raised concerns, an internal investigation was conducted and it showed that all procedures were followed correctly. In fact Human Rights Watch commended the trial as a positive step, while recommending more trials. The authorities are in the process of addressing the suggestion. In any case, you miss the point. I am ruled by an Emir, therefore I am not responsible for his actions. He knows this, I know this, and you know this. You, on the other hand, are responsible for the leaders you elect, the justice system in place and the legal actions of your country's government. FYI, I never said that I dislike Israel. I am in opposition of some of their government policies, as are many Israelis who love and cherish Israel. The situation was black and white till you took out your big paintbrush.
Yeah, I think you know I was referring to the "spooky mystery gas" articles from "Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel" and "antiwar.com". Ridiculous, unfounded, undocumented claims (like the sex gum) deserve to be ridiculed. Well, since John Pike is regularly consulted for comments on defense stories in every major media that I can think of (NY Times, API, AFP, CBS, etc.) and is generally regarded and and described as an expert in defense policy matters, I think that is reasonable. Well, fine. You were very keen on the infallibility of "The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons" when it suited you. Well, that's great. As soon as it does get listed, you'll have a case. There are whole lists of things that I believe should be illegal. But until they are made so, I can't say the law has been broken. And generally when you say the law has been broken, it is required that the people making the claim prove guilt, not the accused prove innocence. Again, if the Kurds can provide the outside world proof that Saddam used chemical weapons, Palestinians should be able. No matter what you think of the Israeli media blockade, information and goods flow much more freely in and out of Gaza than Iraq in the 1980's. Well, then, we are agreed. They didn't violate chemical weapons treaties. I've been saying all along that the law as written and agreed to by all the signatory countries sucks. But it's still the law until something changes. Simply asserting that something is illegal because you wish it were isn't the answer. Rather than five people burned by phosphorous as a secondary result of smoke rounds, I'd personally be much more concerned with the thousand plus people who had their faces caved in by bullets or artillery, but maybe that's just me. Claiming chemical weapons attacks is certainly a better headline. So you bought "I was drugged and tricked into torturing him" defense? If you had presented it instead of the Emir's relative do you think you'd have gotten off? HRW "commended" the trial, because they have the bar set so low that I would have been offended - like when racists in the USA say that black people are "articluate". Their standard was that if he was given a show trial instead of no trial at all, it would be commendable. So at one point you were saying you blame the Israeli government, not the people. Now you blame all the Israeli people? I don't see where you are going with this.
