Talk:White phosphorus munitions/Archives/2009/January

Recent Gaza shell edit

While I'm sure the [edit] of Diamonddavej regarding the exploding shell in the Gaza strip is well-intentioned, I think it is out of the question that this is, indeed, white phosporus. I would be surprised to hear of any weapon exploding like this. If no one objects, I will revert the edit in a few days. I don't think it's a good thing to add 'allegedly' everywhere in an encyclopedia if unwarranted. Pietrow (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "Alleged" to "Papers have reported", as per the 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict article that similarly discusses the possible use of WP shells. Hope that fixes things. --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I should have been more clear... the diff I provided was about the picture. I changed it as indicated above, if you don't agree I'm sure we can work things out. Pietrow (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the reason I didn't understand is because I didn't add the picture or the section on alleged WP use in the 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, I found the section but it was very poorly written, I made it more readable and added a reference to a news paper article. I notice the section has been deleted, there is a section on alleged WP use in the 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict article, so that seems fair enough. But if controversy grows over WP use, as reflected in the media, then the section should be reinstated. --Diamonddavej (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

White Phosphorus Bombs Used in Gaza Strike

• Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorus shells Times Online
• times online M825A1 shell photograph
• Israelis deny using phosphorus Guardian
• White Phosphorus Bomb Evident Photographs Used in Earlier Cases

IDF uses phosphorus shell over Gaza during last strike, claiming they use it for smoke screen, which is most possibly a big lie, because videos showed big explosions where they landed. Kasaalan (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Phosphorus Bomb Photo Evidence

Gaza victims' burns increase concern over phosphorus Times Online

Photographic evidence has emerged that proves that Israel has been using controversial white phosphorus shells during its offensive in Gaza, despite official denials by the Israel Defence Forces.

There is also evidence that the rounds have injured Palestinian civilians, causing severe burns. The use of white phosphorus against civilians is prohibited under international law.

The Times has identified stockpiles of white phosphorus (WP) shells from high-resolution images taken of Israel Defence Forces (IDF) artillery units on the Israeli-Gaza border this week. The pale blue 155mm rounds are clearly marked with the designation M825A1, an American-made WP munition. The shell is an improved version with a more limited dispersion of the phosphorus, which ignites on contact with oxygen, and is being used by the Israeli gunners to create a smoke screen on the ground.

That article goes on to say:

The shell is not defined as an incendiary weapon by the Third Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons because its principal use is to produce smoke to protect troops. (emphasis mine)

That's enough to say it's legal. It then continues:

However, Marc Galasco, of Human Rights Watch, said: "Recognising the significant incidental incendiary effect that white phosphorus creates, there is great concern that Israel is failing to take all feasible steps to avoid civilian loss of life and property by using WP in densely populated urban areas. This concern is amplified given the technique evidenced in media photographs of air-bursting WP projectiles at relatively low levels, seemingly to maximise its incendiary effect."

He added, however, that Human Rights Watch had no evidence that Israel was using incendiaries as weapons.'

That's just fluff to appease the anti-Israelis.

From Global Security via Confederate Yankee:

The M825 is a 155mm Smoke projectile used to provide screening or marking smoke.

So, in other words, it's only smoke. That's the perfectly legal form of WP. The critics need to deal with that.

I recommend reading Confederate Yankee's take.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Yankee has a weblog, so he is an expert, right. He claims it is just smoke screen, yet if it is just smoke screen why do they use it night time. It would affect controversely at night time if it is just for smoke. The burned out civillians actually say more it is more than just smoke, it smokes people. It is not the type of bomb what makes it against conventions, it is where and how it used what makes it against conventions.

Global Security is an all around advertising site, copypasting, with no clear reliable source status, anyway, but the info there doesn't even conflict with the article I provided, which you clearly didn't read or understand.

Israel sides claiming it is only used for smoke screening, therefore legal. Yet the burn marks on the victims say the opposite.

"Photographic evidence has emerged that proves that Israel has been using controversial white phosphorus shells during its offensive in Gaza, despite official denials by the Israel Defence Forces."

So despite the denials of IDF, Times proved they use controversial phosphorus shells.

"There is also evidence that the rounds have injured Palestinian civilians, causing severe burns. The use of white phosphorus against civilians is prohibited under international law."

So there are civillians burned, and it is prohibited to be used against civillians.

There were indications last night that Palestinian civilians have been injured by the bombs, which burn intensely. Hassan Khalass, a doctor at al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, told The Times that he had been dealing with patients who he suspected had been burnt by white phosphorus. Muhammad Azayzeh, 28, an emergency medical technician in the city, said: “The burns are very unusual. They don't look like burns we have normally seen. They are third-level burns that we can't seem to control.”

The Palestinian civillians who have intensely burned, have unregular third level burns that medicals can't control.

"Victims with embedded WP particles in their flesh have to have the affected areas flushed with water. Particles that cannot be removed with tweezers are covered with a saline-soaked dressing."

"Nafez Abu Shaban, the head of the burns unit at al-Shifa hospital, said: “I am not familiar with phosphorus but many of the patients wounded in the past weeks have strange burns. They are very deep and not like burns we used to see."

Doctor says he is not familiar with these burns that happen in the last weeks, which are very deep and strange burns unlike the ones he used to see.

In other parts of the article IDF claims they are legal, just for smoke, that photographed shells were empty [why do even they claim the shells were empty if it is legal to use them], as usual.

The shell is not defined as an incendiary weapon by the Third Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons because its principal use is to produce smoke to protect troops. However, Marc Galasco, of Human Rights Watch, said: “Recognising the significant incidental incendiary effect that white phosphorus creates, there is great concern that Israel is failing to take all feasible steps to avoid civilian loss of life and property by using WP in densely populated urban areas. This concern is amplified given the technique evidenced in media photographs of air-bursting WP projectiles at relatively low levels, seemingly to maximise its incendiary effect.”

Also there is another issue, IDF uses the shells at very low levels, the inhale of white phosphorus is also dangerous, after the bombings all the civillian buildings near war territory either have broken glasses, or opened glasses for them to stay unbroken, the inhale of this smoke is very dangerous to human health, and kids inhaling this smoke.

Times is reliable source so this incident will be mentioned. Kasaalan (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no incident. That quote from the Times was followed by:

...Human Rights Watch had no evidence that Israel was using incendiaries as weapons.

I don't know that it has been used at night, but there's no reason that smoke couldn't be just as important in night operations. Terrorists do have night vision equipment now. Besides that, the moon was close to full when this story came out. Smoke is essential.

I'm sure the Israelis were denying the use of WP as a chemical weapon. Their spokesman, or whomever, may not have known there is a legal version, and so just assumed they couldn't have been using it.

Yes, sometimes civilian eyewitnesses are important. The trouble is, the Middle East isn't known for having reliable eyewitnesses. The 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies show plenty of examples of that. If someone really was burned then they should blame the Hezbollah liars for making their lies so obvious in 2006 (see The Boy Who Cried Wolf).

It would, of course, be much better if Hamas didn't hide behind children.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Blame also Salam Daher for why civilian reports in Gaza cannot be relied on.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Cross reference that there is currently 'no evidence' for or against use in populated areas or non in accordance with international laws removed as it is outdated and no longer relevant. There is now overwhelming evidence that WP use in Gaza was not in accordance with international law and it was heavily used in civilian areas. There is now is lots of direct photographic, video, medical and testimonial evidence that this is the case

-- 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence that Hamas launches attacks from civilian areas. That's just the kind of group these people and their supporters are. The laws of war recognize that it's legitimate to respond to such attacks. What is not legitimate is for Hamas's supporters to refrain from demanding Hamas stop hiding behind women and children. (We'll probably need an article on this at some point.)

That some civilians are burned does not mean the use was illegal. And that the IDF is investigating shows that it does not authorize an illegal use.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"that the IDF is investigating shows that it does not authorize an illegal use"? That seems like 'Original Research' to me. How do you make that conclusion? Has it ever occurred to you that declaring they are investigating has many other possible motives, PR for example, appeasement, coverup -This is after all the same IDF that said it wasn't using Cluster Munitions in the Lebanon - at all - when it later turned out they used 2 million. What credibility whatsoever do they have... 76.99.24.228 (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Smoke-screening properties

This section seems a bit OR-ey for my taste. While it's true that P derives much of the smoke's weight from the air, this is true for just about anything that burns. I'd be more comfortable if we cold get a reliable source stating this, and also the bit about it being a perfect IR-blocker. --John (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)