Phosphorus incendiary bombs, which are "banned" weapons (some are saying that they're not banned) and are poisonous, have been used by the IDF on some southern villages, al-Habariyye and Qlayle. Hizbullah has also hit the Golan Heights.
Update: Tyre has been hit severely. A 12-story high building for the Lebanese Civil Defense have been shelled. Tens of dead and wounded reported. Also a residential building in Tyre has been destroyed, with reported of about ten dead already.
Addendum: It was a painful decision, but I have decided to block comments for now. Though this blog is a public forum and I believe in freedom of speech, but I don't believe it's the time for sarcasm and caustic comments when on both sides of the border people are dying. Lebanese citizens are being killed by the dozens; it hurts too much to overanalyze such realities. I will continue to update the blog regularly for all the Lebanese (and others) abroad who are concerned about what is going on inside Lebanon.
Update 2: Hizbullah's Secretary General Sayyid Nasrallah has just addressed everyone. His speech I felt was geared towards the Israeli government and to the "Arab/Muslim Street" and less addressed to us, the Lebanese.
Update 3: Read From Beirut to the Beltways Massacre in Tyre.
"Nobody knows how many rebellions, besides political rebellions, ferment in the masses of life which people earth."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
olegt, this is "the fog of war" so it is not proper to make fun of people under bombardment just because they may be mistaken!
White phosphorus isn't a banned weapon.
As a fellow blogger concerned with the plight of the Lebanese civilians (see my blog at http://kampfeblog.blogspot.com) -- I believe it is still prudent to feature comments by the dissent. Hear me out: I frequently experience sarcastic and caustic comments by extreme right-wing Zionists despite my objections to their beliefs. I have two reasons for this: 1) as a proponent of democratic free speech, I feel it is my responsibility to preserve all sides of the debate especially during such a time as this, and 2) their negativity and insensitivity only testifies to their extreme bigotry and hatred of others.
I hope this comment persuades you to keep the line open -- otherwise it may discourage others (our dissent, for example) from keeping their comments open - where there needs to be dissent.
http://www.answers.com/topic/white-phosphorus
"in 2005, interviewed by the RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the UN Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: ...White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use...."
I am just wondering - why was my comment erased - I believe that both sides use propaganda, so my question about the source of the Phosphorus claim is quite legitimate.
I'm surprised you deleted my comments, which only mentioned the fact that white phosphorus isn't banned by any international agreement and posted a link to Wikipedia showing that. It is certainly controversial, but it is an effective military tool. That being said, just because something is effective doesn't necessarily make it moral. How it's used is the key in this case, which not being there I do not know.
John & others,
There is no consensus on white phosphorus. It is not as clear cut as you make it to be. Protocol III of the UN's CCW prohibits the use of incendiary weapons on civilians (in this case it is not being used as a smokescreen as it is being dropped from the air). Others split hairs over it. I do not think this is what we should be debating. Whether it is covered by the CCW or not does not change its effects:
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure. These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone.
I wouldn't wish or condone this for anyone.
There is no consensus on white phosphorus. It is not as clear cut as you make it to be.
I didn't say it was clear cut, which is why I mentioned it was controversial. Some argue in favor of it, others oppose it. Yet it still isn't clearly banned by international agreement.
Protocol III of the UN's CCW prohibits the use of incendiary weapons on civilians
As it should be. Ditto for indiscriminate bombing.
(in this case it is not being used as a smokescreen as it is being dropped from the air).
I have no idea how it's being used by the IDF. If they are using it to attack civilians, you have war crime here. Yet if the use is otherwise, it's not. I doubt this will be resolved now, but I'd urge anyone with valid evidence to present to the international community to preserve it and present it when they can.
I wouldn't wish or condone this for anyone.
On Hezbollah, I would. Yet not if there is the possibility of civilian casualties as well.
Post a Comment