Another story of Syria
4/9/13 11:32![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
dexeron.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsJon Stewart returned last night, and the talk of the day was, of course, Syria (and he, of course, tried to inject a little humor into the situation.) However, the interview segment with which he closed out the show was anything but humorous, bringing in Andrew Harper, the head of the United Nations Refugee Agency in Jordan. This is the important story, in my opinion: the story of millions of people displaced from their homes, many of them women and children. It's also the story of nations such as Jordan who are doing what they can to provide a safe haven for some of these people, and the incredible work being done by the UN, an organization that is so often derided by folks here in the U.S., but which does certain things very well; this is one of them.
Any discussion of our response to the situation in Syria should involve the discussion of how we can help these people. While we're talking about what message we should send to the Assad regime, or whether or not we should act militarily, and in which way, here is an obvious human crisis where we could all put our money where our mouths are. I'd prefer to see this story given the lion's share of airtime on our cable news stations, over constant redundant talking heads debating back and forth on questions of chemical weapons and factions and military responses and political calculus.
Here's the interview, in two parts:
If the embedding doesn't work for some reason, here are direct links:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-3-2013/exclusive---andrew-harper-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-3-2013/exclusive---andrew-harper-extended-interview-pt--2
Any discussion of our response to the situation in Syria should involve the discussion of how we can help these people. While we're talking about what message we should send to the Assad regime, or whether or not we should act militarily, and in which way, here is an obvious human crisis where we could all put our money where our mouths are. I'd prefer to see this story given the lion's share of airtime on our cable news stations, over constant redundant talking heads debating back and forth on questions of chemical weapons and factions and military responses and political calculus.
Here's the interview, in two parts:
If the embedding doesn't work for some reason, here are direct links:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-3-2013/exclusive---andrew-harper-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-3-2013/exclusive---andrew-harper-extended-interview-pt--2
(no subject)
Date: 6/9/13 01:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/9/13 01:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/9/13 03:34 (UTC)Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians, which was a clear violation of international law, and their use of them against the Kurds, which was a violation of "international norms" didn't trigger a renewal of the use of chemical weapons, why should we assume Assad's more limited use would? If there are a whole bunch of leaders who are looking at this as a green light, why would an incredibly amount of dithering followed by a bombing campaign that is designed to be limited change their minds? The signal already sent by the UK and Germany seems stronger than that sent by any limited bombing campaign would be.
(no subject)
Date: 6/9/13 18:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/9/13 19:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/9/13 23:09 (UTC)Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus)
(no subject)
Date: 6/9/13 23:46 (UTC)You cited a convention concerning the use of conventional weapons. Oops! A convention the US is a signatory of btw.
The convention also defines weapons which are not to be considered to be incendiary weapons. Examples are: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect."
Can you please point out a time the US has used a white phosphorus incendiary weapon on a civilian area, or the Israels for that matter? NATO and the U.S. both use white phosphorus, but not as a weapon, although it is very possible be killed or burned by a munition meant to produce smoke. I believe the Israels are phasing it out, primarily because of silly propaganda.
(no subject)
Date: 7/9/13 14:31 (UTC)Pretty infamous incidents now... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/20/gaza-white-phosphorus
(no subject)
Date: 7/9/13 16:19 (UTC)First off... depleted uranium and white phosphorous are CONVENTIONAL weapons. Like... wtf? Secondly, all of the "weapons" (they aren't actually weapons, except the depleted uranium) listed here are under the exempt list that you, yourself posted. You know the part I repeated back to you about what isn't a incendiary weapon? These are "weapons" just about every modern military uses, most likely your country's own military. To bad Australia's military isn't made up of Jewish folk so we could find out.
(no subject)
Date: 7/9/13 16:58 (UTC)Having white phosphorous rain down over a school yard is against the convention. That they are being called as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems gives them plausible deniability even as they are obviously being used as weaponry.
(no subject)
Date: 8/9/13 16:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/9/13 18:43 (UTC)from the UN press conference Sept 15 2009
http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2009/090915_Gaza.doc.htm
"The mission concluded that, among other things, Israel had failed to take feasible precautions required by international law to avoid or minimize loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. Specifically, the firing of white phosphorous shells on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) compound, the intentional strike at the Al Quds hospital using high-explosive artillery shells and white phosphorous, and the attack against Al Wafa hospital, were all violations of international humanitarian law."
(no subject)
Date: 8/9/13 23:25 (UTC)The UN will essentially find a war crime in anything Israel does, regardless of any merits to the accusations. It is the UN after all, which has an extreme history of anti-Israel bias. Likewise, Israel correctly asserts that using those munitions does not constitute a war crime. I'll just have to ignore the fact you are using a press release to the Goldstone report, a report that not only has been thoroughly discredited, but it's central conclusions where redacted by Mr. Goldstone himself.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 01:45 (UTC)White Phosphorus was used in such a way that it harmed civilians with wanton disregard for the safety of said civilians, and leading to the death and injury of said civilians. You can handwave and dance around that however you want, but don't insult our intelligence by trying to convince us that it's ok because they're not technically "weapons", as if that somehow erases the damage they've caused.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 03:46 (UTC)LOL what? Even the Goldstone report specifically states that the use of WP is not illegal under international law (this was in the original report). It simply isn't. Literally, it states that WP used for smoke screens is not prohibited. The likes of Amnesty international try to make it illegal by redefining what a incendiary weapon is, that is a "air-bursting white phosphorus artillery shell." It simply isn't.
White Phosphorus was used in such a way that it harmed civilians with wanton disregard for the safety of said civilians, and leading to the death and injury of said civilians. You can handwave and dance around that however you want, but don't insult our intelligence by trying to convince us that it's ok because they're not technically "weapons",
Again, no evidence that they were used that way. These are airburst munitions designed and built in the US to create smoke, not kill people. NATO uses the same weapon. It would be incredibly ineffective to try and burn buildings and kill civilians with. The way people speak of it, you would think these munitions burned down entire towns and cities, leaving thousands of deaths in there place, but that simply didn't happen. In fact, amenesty international complained more about the damage caused by the shell fragments failing to the ground, not the WP soaked wedges it expels. Your intelligence can be insulted all it wants, but facts are facts. Willie Pete isn't a chemical weapon, smoke munitions are legal to use over civilian populations, and WP isn't banned by the international community and there is absolutely no evidence that Israel used WP inappropriately, and in fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
as if that somehow erases the damage they've caused.
You want to give me some causality figures, some collateral damage figures, go for it. They don't really exist, of course. Please no anecdotal evidence.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 12:28 (UTC)And again, you're dodging. We're not trying to claim it is illegal. We're saying that it was used in a careless manner that lead to civilian deaths.
These are airburst munitions designed and built in the US to create smoke, not kill people.
Oh, well they're not DESIGNED to kill people. I guess a wizard did it, or something.
You want to give me some causality figures, some collateral damage figures, go for it. They don't really exist, of course.
Links have already been provided to you. You are choosing to dismiss them, because you're stuck on this strawman about arguing whether or not it is a "weapon", which isn't the point. Your argument is the rhetorical equivalent of me saying: "smoking has been linked to cancer" and you answering: "But tomatoes aren't a vegitable!" What you're saying might be true, but it's not answering the contention being made.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 13:24 (UTC)Define a "careless manner." While your at it, tell us what a careful manner would be with using WP smoke munitions over civilian populations.
Oh, well they're not DESIGNED to kill people. I guess a wizard did it, or something.
I'm still waiting on those causality reports.
Links have already been provided to you.
Don't embarrass yourself. Those links provide no information on the overall damage caused by the WP smoke munitions.
(no subject)
Date: 10/9/13 03:04 (UTC)Agent Orange
Zinc Cadmium Sulphide
Teargas
Depleted Uranium
Ah, just forget it, you got excuses for everything anyways.
(no subject)
Date: 13/9/13 04:01 (UTC)Okay, admittedly pepper spray and teargas are sorta, technically, chemical weapons. Much more so than white phosphorus. I certainly wouldn't go around telling people how many people I know who were attacked by chemical weapons though. It would likely confuse people. The rest on your list are not chemical weapons. Agent Orange's health effects were not known, and were not meant to kill humans. It was not considered harmful during the time it was used. Same goes for Zinc Cadmium Sulfide. Saying depleted uranium is a chemical weapon is a bit like saying lead paint is, or the arsenic laden ground water where I grew up is a chemical weapon. It simply isn't. You should be embarrassed and feel dumb for saying such things. Essentially, you have such a weak definition of "chemical weapon" that everything used in modern warfare qualifies. The grenade uses a chemical reaction to explode, gun powder burns and propels a bullet, etc.
And seriously, if you want to go around and spout off about how terrible it is that the US uses chemical weapons like pepper spray and tear gas, go ahead. I don't really care how much people laugh at you.
(no subject)
Date: 7/9/13 06:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/9/13 16:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/9/13 18:39 (UTC)