Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- 'Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
Popular content
Today's Top News
Gaza Victims' Burns Increase Concern Over Phosphorus
JERUSALEM - 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.
The pale blue 155mm rounds are clearly marked with the designation M825A1, an American-made white phosphorus munition 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.
The rounds, which explode into a shower of burning white streaks, were first identified by The Times at the weekend when they were fired over Gaza at the start of Israel's ground offensive. Artillery experts said that the Israeli troops would be in trouble if they were banned from using WP because it is the simplest way of creating smoke to protect them from enemy fire.
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."
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."
When The Times reported on Monday that the Israeli troops appeared to be firing WP shells to create a thick smoke camouflage for units advancing into Gaza, an IDF spokesman denied the use of phosphorus and said that Israel was using only the weapons that were allowed under international law.
Rows of the pale blue M825A1 WP shells were photographed on January 4 on the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border. Another picture showed the same munitions stacked up behind an Israeli self-propelled howitzer.
Confronted with the latest evidence, an IDF spokeswoman insisted that the M825A1 shell was not a WP type. "This is what we call a quiet shell - it is empty, it has no explosives and no white phosphorus. There is nothing inside it," she said.
"We shoot it to mark the target before we launch a real shell. We launch two or three of the quiet shells which are empty so that the real shells will be accurate. It's not for killing people," she said.
Asked what shell was being used to create the smokescreen effect seen so clearly on television images, she said: "We're using what other armies use and we're not using any weapons that are banned under international law."
Neil Gibson, technical adviser to Jane's Missiles and Rockets, insisted that the M825A1 was a WP round. "The M825A1 is an improved model. The WP does not fill the shell but is impregnated into 116 felt wedges which, once dispersed [by a high-explosive charge], start to burn within four to five seconds. They then burn for five to ten minutes. The smoke screen produced is extremely effective," he said.
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."
He added, however, that Human Rights Watch had no evidence that Israel was using incendiaries as weapons.
British and American artillery units have stocks of white phosphorus munitions but they are banned as anti-personnel weapons. "These munitions are not unlawful as their purpose is to provide obscuration and not cause injury by burning," a Ministry of Defence source said.
Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian war surgery specialist working in Gaza, told The Times that he had seen injuries believed to have resulted from Israel's use of a new "dense inert metal explosive" that caused "extreme explosions". He said: "Those inside the perimeter of this weapon's power zone will be torn completely apart. We have seen numerous amputations that we suspect have been caused by this."
- Posted in
153 Comments so far
Show AllIf you don't use it, there won't be any chance it is misused, so there is no excuse for using it. Period.
Its use constitutes a war crime in my opinion, no less than gas.
I think it hurts much more than gas, from the pictures I have seen of Iraqi children with their flesh burned off and bare bones sticking out where their arms should be. But then this unbelievable cruelty inflicted on the innocent is overwhelmingly approved by our Senators.
Believe me, Willie Pete is worse than most anything. I'd rather take Napalm given the choice.
It burns straight thru. Its horrible.
Thomas More,
I share your concerns, but happen to disagree.
Israel has the legal right to use WP for screening or illumination purposes.
It is not banned by the Geneva Convention.
If it were a crime, then we would be just as guilty for using it in Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea.
But it isn't a crime.
Your argument that - "If you don't use it, there won't be any chance it is misused, so there is no excuse for using it. Period." - Makes no sense. It could be used against ANY weapon of war. A Civil War era cannon could be misused against civilian targets. ANY weapon could be misused. That is not a reason to ban the use of weapons.
Also, with regard to the use of gas. Yes, like every sane person I'm opposed to chemical weapons. But I'll admit, it's hard to say why. For example, which is worse, dying from poison gas, or being burned alive by a fireball, or being riddled with bullets and dying from infection over a period of several weeks?
Spoken like a true couch warrior. Have you seen what WP can do to you? I have. I hope that you get hit by one and then you can come back and let us know what it felt like. You bloody racist born-again-zionist idiot..
joehope
"Have you seen what WP can do to you? I have"
I have to concur with this statement by the poster below. I have seen its effects myself, had some of my men hit by it.
Taske my word for this, it makes a hell of a difference what you are hit with, how and where it hits you and though I can't speask from personal experiense, I can speak authoratively having observed it more times than I care to remember, it makes a difference how you die.
"then we would be just as guilty for using it in Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea"
I don't know for a fact we have used it in iraq, I hope not, none of our artillery batteries are supoposed to have those rounds anymore. In Viet Nam I hated it. Korean vets did too as far as they have said.
"A Civil War era cannon could be misused against civilian targets. ANY weapon could be misused."
Willie Pete does a lot more damage that a civil war cannon or a hundred of them. and I wasn't speaking only of its use around civilians.
Yes, cluster bombs and Willie Pete are most assuredly weapons that should join the banned list.
Thomas More wrote,
"I don't know for a fact we have used it in iraq, I hope not, none of our artillery batteries are supoposed to have those rounds anymore."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1128-05.htm
Critics say civilians died in incendiary attacks. U.S. asserts white phosphorus was only used on insurgents.
"Taske my word for this, it makes a hell of a difference what you are hit with, how and where it hits you and though I can't speask from personal experiense, I can speak authoratively having observed it more times than I care to remember, it makes a difference how you die."
First let me say what so many Americans forgot to say: thank you for your service in Vietnam.
Although, I wouldn't argue with your experience, nor would I argue that it doesn't matter how a person dies, I will say that you have missed the point I was making.
There are as many horrible ways to die, which are perfectly legal, as there are ways that are illegal. Surely, being burned alive in a torturous experience. I would also point out that the criteria for limiting the use of certain weapons is not based on their ability to kill in large amounts. It is not illegal for the USA to use daisycutters or nukes, for instance.
joehope
I'd doubt the Iraqi's word but if some of our artillery guys confirmed we have them there....I hate to hear that.
"First let me say what so many Americans forgot to say: thank you for your service in Vietnam."
Kind, but no need...the only guys that deserve that have their names on the Black Wall. The rest of us got back.
Believe me, I'd rather have been here!
I believe I got the point, I just believe there are appropriate weapons and some that aren't. Willie Pete doesn't belong on the battlefield. Its very difficult to explain properly.
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.
-a round fired from a tank is not defined as a bullet but you still don't want to get hit with one
Even if all phosphorus burns up in the atmosphere the poisonous products P2O5 and phosphoric acid will reach the ground.
When the incoming Führer was asked why he had not denouced Nazi war crimes against Jews in concentration camps and he responded, "We only have one Führer at a time," his Nazi supporters approved and applauded.
There are a few other things going on - it is not quite that simple. So being "disturbed" about the loss of lives on both sides will have to suffice as a statement.
First, there is the economic stimulus package Obama wants to get through Congress - so don't expect him to make a statement before then. If Obama figured that Israel was acting justly, then there would be no difficulty coming forward and condemning the Palestinians for hurting the Israeli Military's fists with their faces - it would not impact his stimulus package being passed.
Second, this latest massacre will probably be over before Obama takes office - so he gains nothing by coming out strongly on one side or the other. Obama will be charged with negotiating with both sides when he takes office. There are things that Obama can do under the radar if he is less overt in his statements - presumably for reasons unrelated to the conflict. Obama can cut arms to the Israelis on the guise that they cannot afford to sell them (so the Israeli lobby has a more difficult time claiming that he is doing it because he supports the Palestinians).
Third, Obama will be trying to get rid of lobbyists in Washington (or so he promised) - which would include the Israeli lobby - which will be made more difficult if he is branded a Jew hater. One reason for all this "Obama is a Muslim" talk was to make it more difficult for Obama to stand up to this lobby.
At present, we don't know what Obama is thinking. However, even if he thinks as we do, he has landmines he needs to navigate through.
What we need to do is keep up the pressure so that Obama does the right thing - knowing full well that the pressure from the other side will be overwhelming.
Oh...I think I understand your point. For politically expedient reasons, the Führer
of the free world, Obama, must turn a blind eye to war crimes, violations of Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions, murdering of UN relief workers, atrocities, and massacres.
Let me guess, you must be a "progressive" Democrat.
No - I didn't say that. What I did say is that negotiators have to be careful about what they say if they wish to exact change. I am hoping that Obama stands up to those things - but know that he has to precede carefully if he does.
War crimes are bad no matter who commits them.
Murdering of UN relief workers is bad no matter which side does it.
Shooting at civilians is wrong no matter who does it.
Obama cannot single out Israel if he agrees with the above statements, but he should not exempt them either. We remind him of the former and work to prevent the latter. I am more worried about an exemption or loophole created for Israel than I desire them being singled out. Israel is not the only state who should be held accountable for their war crimes - it is one of a select club.
Note that Buzz Hargrove of CAW never gave his finger during a speech to Harper until after he stepped down. Before then Buzz knew that he had to negotiate with Harper to get a better deal for his auto workers.
I am on your side. I am not American. I don't vote Liberal or Conservative.
Unfortunately this is true. The right has (frighteningly and depressingly) proven much more ready to impeach than the democrats. We've become accustomed to the president getting away with whatever he wants because the dems were too scared to do anything about Bush and his crimes against humanity, but I doubt the republicans will show the same restraint.
You try to make change from within the system, it's not the system that changes. It's the system that eventually changes you. Even assuming Obama has good intentions (which is a HUGE stretch for me, given his coziness with agribusiness and right-wing cabinet picks), by becoming president he has handcuffed himself by the rules. It's time for us to break the rules, as Obama has already shown us what playing against a stacked deck will get you.
Oh what could be worse than a "progressive" Democrat...right?
The effective time for change in policy is when the time for change is possible...in 2 weeks if Obama makes it.
If Obama came out and condemned Israel or either side alone, it would make a peace deal and everything else he needs the congress to do impossible... even the media would jump on him like they would jump on you if you were a leader.
Obama is concerned about the violence on both sides and in about another month we will be able to see if he will continue with the one sided approach..... What you don't seem to get is that there are practicle expediant things a leader must do in order to win. The fact that the Israeli lobby has more power in the USA media and government than in Israel is a reason for Obama to not tip his hand right now. Politics is down and dirty so get used to it... get used to the fact that it is about compromise not just an exercise to spout dogma or Pure ideology without practical consideration of reality.
Now you can tell us how "evil" the progressive Dems are... like we haven't had that lecture before.
Yeah, like I said, for politically expedient reasons, the Führer
of the free world, Obama, must turn a blind eye to war crimes, violations of Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions, murdering of UN relief workers, atrocities, and massacres.
Let me guess, you must be a "progressive" Democrat.
Yes I am a commie progressive Dem... what are you gonna do about it?
I feel your pain. I would be angry too if someone pointed out the glaring contradiction between what I profess to believe in and the fact that I support a leader that is for the opposite, or stands idly by, like a coward, and says nothing.
The fact Obama is a staunch supporter of Israel, right or wrong, and an AIPAC lapdog is indisputable.
Your argument is weak. By your logic one must stand by like Obama, while a mother is ruthlessly raped in order to stay on good terms with rapists. Yes, unfortunatly a price is paid for standing up for what’s morally right.
That's the glaring difference between an opportunist politician like Obama who won the award for the best marketing campaign of year and the late, great Dr. Martin Luther King, who paid the ultimate price. Please correct me if wrong but MLK was no Democrat.
Correct! MLK was a small 'd' democrat and was murdered by LBJ's Democrat administration, as the civil trial between his heirs and the US government proved.
Ric,
You don't have to support Obama bout anything.
Glad you like MLK we can agree on that.
Sounds good brother.
Oh so now I am supposed to see Obama is politically expediently the Fuhrer now?
You are more hung up on the Nazis than me!
"in about another month we will be able to see if he will continue with the one sided approach."
That is faint consolation to the probably thousands more Palestinian civilians who will painfully DIE in that time period Jim. Of course it's *"all worth it" to be quiet about war crimes as long as we get a "green" stimulus package that includes more roads for C02 spewing cars and support for "clean coal" (an oxymoron). But of course progressive Democrats aren't part of the problem how could I ever think that?
*Remember too Madeine Albright said it "was worth it" to painfully starve 500,000 Iraqi children to implement Clinton's cruel sanctions against Iraq. Of course crimes have a delicious creamy nuget center when the party committing has a name that begins with D, right Jim?
wrong... you and I are part of the problem too.
Wars are not ended because we say they are evil.... if they are ended it is through reason and compromise.
You are free to blame Obama and the Dems for not being pure like you are acting, but his job is to be a politician that can do what he has said he will try to do.... If he acted like you want he would not have gotten nominated. that is the reality we are dealing with and that is the real political environment on planet earth.
Your anger is justified, my point is to have a little patience in our search for instant justice in this wicked world... that is my truth and you are free to be yourself... no problemo here.
You can blame the Dems for everything... but they are at fault like all of us. What have you done for your country lately?
That is more important than blaming Dems.
If the Dims fail to change foreign policy why should they get a pass? Unlike you I don't have a stiffy in my pants for the letter D, it's just a letter like R or G for me.
p.s What I have done for my country starting after college I worked years doing door to door fund raising for Greenpeace, after that I spent a year living on the side of mountain hiking supplies up to tree sitters and I slept in the rain in a net made of parachute cord at 150 feet in a Redwood tree in Humboldt County California leading to a 120 acres of old growth trees not being cut, I also was peppered sprayed at the demonstration against Bush's inaugural in 2005, after that I worked on a successful campaign to stop the Coast Guard from engaging in live fire machine gun training on the Great Lakes. i have also been to more demoes against the Iraq war than I can remember.
How about you Jim?
Yes I have been to the demonstrations more than i can count too.... keep it up.
But no I don't get a "stiffy" over this stuff at all but if it turns you on, go for it!
Isn't it all just a little absurd. The story is written as if there is some humane way to kill people in war. War is inhumane and barbaric and we need to find better ways to achieve our ends.
You are wrong in my opinion. Inhumane or humane doesn't enter into this. How you are killed is quite important to the people involved, so I'd say its not absurd, untill war is obsolete.
"War is inhumane and barbaric and we need to find better ways to achieve our ends."
Truer words never spoken and say it often.
Meanwhile, in the peaceful and compliant West Bank - the example of what the Gazans could have if they would just learn to do what Isreal tells them to do:
This:
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34776
and this:
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34789
and this:
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34795
and this short newwire item:
"09/01/2009 14:42: Israeli troops open fire on demonstrators in Beit Ummar, other points in the West Bank"
---USAn---
Thanks for the links, I will be passing them along, to my representative in government.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
In song: "LULLABY FOR A CHILD IN WAR"
http://soundclick.com/share?songid=6086636
(free download)(complete lyrics)
mainesongwriter@gmail.com
I've always been intrigued by the phrase "war crime". It's like saying, "war war" or "crime crime". Since war and crime are synonemous, why bother to use the same word twice. Of course, I only graduated from high school in 1961. What the Hell do I know?
So true! your remark sound's like an old George Carlin schtick.
But you only can see things that way BECAUSE you graduated from HS in 1961.
Even a young 52 yr old like myself (HS class of 1975), can remember when we considered the death of even the combatants in any war, even the "bad guys" to be tragic.
War itself is the outrage.
---USAn---
War itself is the outrage.
Darn, you got that one right!
In other news the President of Lebanon claims Israel tried to set up a false flag operation from that Nation.
Lebanese forces found a number of rockets set up on timers and aimed towards Israel.
Remember all that was needed is for a handful of rockets to be fired from the Gaza strip to gain the overwhelming support of the US Government for an Israeli attack on the same.
Included is their implicit support of these war crimes, the targetting of civilians, the use of banned or proscribed weapons, the cutting of food and supplies. Included in this US support is the ramp up of arms to Israel including more devasting bombs, cluster munitions and the like.
The President of Lebanon believes that Israel hopes to turn on that country once it completes its operations in the strip using as a pretext the claim that they must defend thier citizens.
Israel has used such tactics before. It my belief that the President of Lebanon is correct in his assertions. If the United States Government and the EU and other member states follow the same pattern, they will allow an attack on Lebanon for purposes of "self defense" only moving to halt it once Israel approves.
I watched the CTV news last night. Sickening. The anchor reported that "Hamas rockets continued to be fired into Israel even as Israel tries to maintain a ceasefire".
I once supported the notion of a two state solution in the Middle East for Israel and Palestine. It was my belief that while a crime was committed in the theft of Palestinian lands, a two state solution including substantial payments to the new Palestinian state for the loss of their lands was the best possible outcome.
I can no longer support this. I now agree with the President of Iran. The State of Israel must disappear from the pages of history much as Yugoslavia did before.
I suggest the nation states that most vocally support Israel and or those that help them commit these atrocities set aside lands in their own territories for the creation of a new Jewish Homeland.
So you now reject the decision of the nations of the world's in their UN vote? How is it illegal if the state of Israel was created by the UN? Don't mistake me, I am not an admirer of the UN per se, but I thought you supported them?
"I can no longer support this. I now agree with the President of Iran. The State of Israel must disappear from the pages of history much as Yugoslavia did before."
My real surprise here is to see you advocating war.
Not rhetorical or meant any other way than stated. Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood.
How am I advocating war? I am advocating the people who want a Jewish Homeland being relocated.
As to the UN. No I have stated time and time again that the State of Israel should not have been created. I have never stated I agreed with everything the UN did or with its structure. As example I have stated many times that YOUR country is irresponsible and a nation that creates conflicts and should not have been given veto power in the security council.
A state need not have war to vanish. Please look to as example Czechoslovakia. It does not exist on any modern map.
I am advocating PEACE and suggest Israels actions have shown that the only way of acheiving it is to remove the Rogue State of Israel from an area it should never have been created in.
Israel does NOT WANT peace. They want land. They want to extinguish or remove the peoples who live on the lands that they want. They have not changed this strategy in the entirety of their existence.
I also suggest that if the UN CREATED the State of Israel (mistake that it was) , then they can REMOVE that State.
" I have never stated I agreed with everything the UN did or with its structure."
I stand corrected, thank you.
"How am I advocating war? I am advocating the people who want a Jewish Homeland being relocated"
I understand your points, but the Israel will only be disolved by defeat in war. They are not moving. I took your statement that they should be wiped from the face of the earth as advocating war against them.
100% no chance of the Israeli going peacefully and frankly I don't see any country or combination of countries in the middle east that can beat them.
If they were attacked their response wouldn't be controlled like this one.
Canada voted yes I believe. Don't be too harsh with us, so did most of the worlds countries.
Thanks for clearing that up about the UN and what you meant about the destruction of Israel. I just couldn't see you meaning it that way.
>>Thanks for clearing that up about the UN and what you meant about the destruction of Israel. I just couldn't see you meaning it that way.
WHAT way? I said I agreed with the President of Iran in this regard and he made the same point. He said Israel should disappear from the pages of History and he was citing the Ayatollah who mentioned the very thing and used in his statement "LIKE the USSR".
The USSR is no more.
I suggest your problem is assumed I was referring to the DELIBERATE misquote that the MSM and Israel advanced when the President of Iran made his statement.
Israel was given a chance. As a people coming to ANOTHER peoples land It was up to Israel to ensure those peoples livingthere treated fairly. They did not.
They decided that it was up to the people of Palestine to just give up 80- percent of the land they owned in order to keep 20 percent.
PK
Israel was not created by the UN. The infamous partition plan Res. 181 was voted by the General Assembly as a recommendation only. The vote had no legal power. The UN Security Council refused to pass it. In any case, the failed and ridiculously unworkable plan required the agreement of both sides which was never going to happen and why the Security Council refused to pass it – it was going to lead to war. As an additional, hopefully obvious point, the UN has no legal or moral authority to seize private or communal property to give to other people and it was never the plan's intent to do that. All parties, Jews and non-Jews were to have full and equal civil and legal rights – in accordance with modern, enlightened principles.
The foundation of Israel has no basis in international law. Zionist leaders simply declared the state of Israel in May of 1948 following months of duplicitous (kibbutz leaders pretending to befriend local Palestinian villagers while gathering information on them) and meticulously planned terror campaigns to clear some three-quarters of a million non-Jewish people from their homes, farms, cities and towns (including the Arab villages now called Sderot and Ashkelon – land which still legally belongs to Palestinians, many of them forced into hard poverty in the hellhole of Gaza only a short distance away) to make way for the vaunted Jewish-majority “homeland.” This ethnic cleansing has been going on ever since and it is going on now. You see it in its full bestiality in Gaza. Not so apparent is the slowly closing vise, the starvation, crushing and demolition of the people of the West Bank.
And so I too, like the commenter above and like the President of Iran, desperately hope that the Zionist regime will soon fade from the pages of time – that is -- dissolve, fail, disappear; be replaced by a humane and enlightened state. This is not a declaration of war or a desire to kill all the Jews. It is a wish for the end of a brutal, dangerous, evil regime that threatens world peace and blinds and corrupts the moral values of all those who support it.
Never mind.
I agree, one state no Israel. The zionazis have to go. They should be repatriated back to Russia. Any others who want a new home should go to Montana.
The UN should undo what it did so poorly so long ago, and restore the Palestinians to their homes.
The wrongs must be righted, and reparations made.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
You are still getting your news from CTV! Hey, it could be worse - you could be watching Global! Old Izzy figured that any country named after himself could do no wrong.
You heard that the Red Cross won't be bringing any more supplies into Gaza because too many of their members and their facilities have been shot (and shot at) by the Israeli Military.
UN halts aid to Gaza, citing Israeli attacks on staff
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/08/israel-gaza.html
Re Lebanon: Have not heard about the Israeli aiming the rockets at themselves yet - but, considering what I have heard so far, it would not surprise me. What I did hear on the CBC yesterday morning was that it wasn't Hezbula because they usually take credit when they do things and that the Lebanese government was going to look into it.
Glad to see that Naomi Klein has finally weighed in - going to read her article next.
>>You are still getting your news from CTV! Hey, it could be worse - you could be watching Global! Old Izzy figured that any country named after himself could do no wrong
Actually I rarely watch CTV news. I was looking for news on all the flooding in BC and had to sit through the "spin" on Gaza to get there... :)
An example of a bold face lie:
"Confronted with the latest evidence, an IDF spokeswoman insisted that the M825A1 shell was not a WP type. "This is what we call a quiet shell - it is empty, it has no explosives and no white phosphorus. There is nothing inside it," she said.
"We shoot it to mark the target before we launch a real shell. We launch two or three of the quiet shells which are empty so that the real shells will be accurate. It's not for killing people," she said.
========================================================
Who came up with the idiotic idea to create a loophole so that white phosphorus could be used as a smoke screen! There are other substances that would work equally well if all you wanted was a smoke screen. Because if this stupid loophole, one has to prove that the Israeli Military intentionally used the stuff on civilians (rather than the civilians just happening to be there). We know why they used it - this is a land grab. Hurricane Katrina and the people who refused to fix the Levies ahead of Hurricane Katrina were much kinder in achieving the same ends.
If the population is dead or afraid to return home, then who owns the property - according to Israeli law!
Since Israel does not let reporters into Gaza to verify anything they say, they can play games about WP shells and all this does is distract from all of the proven war crimes they are engaged in now.
As long as we debate WP shells, in that context and regard they are off the hook... this is just one of those practical things most people don't want to consider.
But we will discuss it and try to find justice anyway because that is reality too.
Willy Picton is serving jail time - and his pigs have a taste for human flesh.
Why does the lack of media in Gaza make me think of Willy Picton?
Maybe it is because most war crimes are proven when you uncover mass graves.
The firestorm-destruction of Hamburg and Dresden during WW2 was due to the use of white phosphorus bombs. Tens of thousands, perhaps even more than 100,000 of non-combatants were killed. I do not have to know what the Geneva Convention states about the use of white phosphorus. It is a chemical weapon of mass destruction. Apparently it is OK if Olmert has it but not if Hussein had it.
If used to create a smoke screen and not as an anti-personnel device it's not classified as a chemical weapon.