Another story of Syria

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Jon 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

Comments

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

You mean using chemical weapons like White Phosphorus, which is banned by every country except Israel and USA?

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I don't think white phosphorus is banned by any country, and I'm fairly certain the Australian military uses white phosphorus also.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

"There are multiple international laws that could be seen to regulate white phosphorus use.[92] Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol prohibits the use of said incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. 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."
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus)

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

LOL. This is one of those situations where repeating your argument back to is enough to invalidate your original argument.

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.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/the-u-s-and-israel-have-used-chemical-weapons-within-the-last-8-years.html

Pretty infamous incidents now... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/20/gaza-white-phosphorus

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

These guys should absolutely be embarrassed to write either one of these stories you link to. These are supposed to be journalist? Good lord. I suppose their strong need to be anti-U.S., anti-jew overrides their requirement to actually think about things, fact check, or overall be honest in the things they write.

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.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Because you asked I pointed out some links showing times the US/Israel has used a white phosphorus incendiary weapon on a civilian area.

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.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I asked you to provide examples of incendiary weapons, you give me examples of of smoke producing munitions, then say they are being used as weapons. Your position has basically denigrated from the US and Israel being the only nations on earth that use banned chemical weapons to... they use smoke bombs improperly. A position that is completely lacking in evidence also, btw. I wonder what you would be saying if I used the same line of arguments to show that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I don't know why you ask me to provide examples when I'm sure you're capable of googling this yourself. As I said this is quite notorious.

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."

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Those instances did not involve incendiary weapons. There are no instances of phosphorous incendiary weapons being used in civilian areas in Gaza during Cast Lead, just smoke producing munitions. Stop posting links to it.

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.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

That is a positively Scalian argument, like saying that torture for the sake of getting information is Constitutionally permissible because it's not technically "cruel and unusual punishment" because no one is being "punished" for a specific crime.

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.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

That is a positively Scalian argument, like saying that torture for the sake of getting information is Constitutionally permissible because it's not technically "cruel and unusual punishment" because no one is being "punished" for a specific crime.

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.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Pepper spray
Agent Orange
Zinc Cadmium Sulphide
Teargas
Depleted Uranium

Ah, just forget it, you got excuses for everything anyways.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

LOL.

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.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

White Phosphorous isn't considered a banned weapon no, but perhaps it should be. Things get kind of arbitrary and fuzzy when we're talking about war.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why white phosphorous should be banned. Sure, a munition meant to make smoke can kill a person if a lot of the fuel gets on them, but those situations don't happen all that often, horrific and tragic when they do, but horrific and tragic is essentially what war is. I rather have a smoke bomb go off near me rather than, you know, an actual bomb.