282
submitted 1 year ago by snek@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] cypher_greyhat@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Israeli government said they didn’t. Evidence suggests they did. Hmm. 🤔

[-] ZILtoid1991@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago

It turns out: governments lie.

Shocking, like when I realized water is wet.

[-] Rambler@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Who would have thought they'd lie to us - shocking! /s

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

The weapon of heroes.

[-] M500@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

I don’t really know anything about this stuff. What makes this worse than other things?

The article says Israel never signed anything saying they would not use it.

[-] angrymouse@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

These "forbidden" substances are usually too hard for a medic to treat and kill slowly. In this case, the thing stick and can burn till the bones, and even after the initial impact the remnants can still ignite. It is just a mess in the body.

[-] kibiz0r@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

Upon contact, white phosphorus can burn people, thermally and chemically, down to the bone as it is highly soluble in fat and therefore in human flesh. White phosphorus fragments can exacerbate wounds even after treatment and can enter the bloodstream and cause multiple organ failure. Already dressed wounds can reignite when dressings are removed and the wounds are re-exposed to oxygen. Even relatively minor burns are often fatal. For survivors, extensive scarring tightens muscle tissue and creates physical disabilities. The trauma of the attack, the painful treatment that follows, and appearance-changing scars lead to psychological harm and social exclusion.

Just to reiterate, cuz it really sounds like some sci-fi alien shit:

Already dressed wounds can reignite when dressings are removed and the wounds are re-exposed to oxygen.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago

Think Napalm's meaner acidic cousin

[-] snek@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What makes this worse than other things?

I think it's good to read the article, they explain a lot of it and how Israel is refusing to comply with its ban as a weapon.


Sorry, you were right, it doesn't explain too much in the article, but this from HRW explains it in much better details: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/questions-and-answers-israels-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-and-lebanon

I caused confusion, it was my bad.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Read the article? Preposterous.

What's next? Reading up on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before jumping to an unnuanced conclusion?

No thanks. I think we should cheerlead for who we consider the 'good guys' based on nothing more than tiktok videos and what anonymous people on twitter say.

[-] kcfb@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Says the person who didn't even read the article thoroughly enough to catch OP's mistake before the edit. Everyone is always looking for a way to feel superior. 😂

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Reasons that the use of white phosphorous is considered worse than conventional munitions listed in the article (which you also didn't read):

... the use of such weapons puts civilians at risk of serious and long-term injury ... white phosphorus smokescreen munitions used during its 2008-2009 offensive in Gaza ... drew war crimes allegations ... Because it has legal uses, white phosphorus is not banned as a chemical weapon under international conventions, but it can cause serious burns and start fires. ... is considered an incendiary weapon under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons. The protocol prohibits using incendiary weapons against military targets located among civilians, although Israel has not signed it and is not bound by it.

The HRW article goes into a bit more detail about how severe these serious injuries are, what happened during the 2008-2009 offensive that drew war crimes allegations, and Israel's current stance on the use of white phosphours.

You're welcome.

[-] Bread@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Preposterous? Didn't you read it? It says white phosphorus. Big difference! /s

[-] FederatedSaint@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

All I know is that there was a little fighting before, and now there is a lot of fighting.

BAD! BAD FIGHTING!

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Chemical rounds meant to cause injury are banned in the Geneva convention. It's not a separate treaty.

[-] BombOmOm@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If it's being used as a smokescreen, a very common use, there is nothing at all bad about it.

Edit: People seem to think that it's common use as a smoke screen is a problem. What, specifically, is the issue when it is being used as a smokescreen?

[-] Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago

I have no idea if they did or not, but Russia was also accused of using it and most of the videos purporting its use turned out to be magnesium, which also burns white, produces white smoke, and sets pretty much everything it touches on fire.

So far the 40 beheaded babies turned out not to exist. I trust very few non-expert reports of things happening.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

WaPo confirmed it. And an air bursting Magnesium round is also a war crime.

[-] FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

WaPo confirmed it.

Where?

[-] yogurt@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

WP burns yellower, and magnesium is very rare because it's expensive and complicated. WP auto-ignites in air, magnesium has to be separately lit by the delivery system. You can't practically put a magnesium incendiary in an artillery shell, what you see in Gaza is mostly artillery.

And suddenly switching to magnesium would be an absolute psycho move. The way you treat a WP burn is pouring tons of water on it, magnesium explodes on contact with water.

[-] donescobar@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Wait until they start rolling out the space lasers

[-] angrymouse@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

They probably used it, in 2013 Israel said they would phase out the use of WP but is not clear when this project would finish, also WP was used in literally every conflict before this by Israel. It is also important to note that WP is not forbidden by international law, but only close to civilians.

IMO is obvious that Israel would use this kind of weapon, IDK why ppl are so impressed. They are using the same tactics used by Russia of trying cut supply of food, fuel and water supplies in order to destroy the morality of everyone there.

And this is why I hate, while sharing all the beliefs of the discourse, USA and and west Europe, because what they say publicly does not match what they do.

At least China say openly that they want to protect their stuff, even when their stuff is not exactly their. USA and west Europe, in other hand, claim a moral superiority to their decisions while justify killing civilians with the Hammas violence, if you call it out they complain about whataboutism, dude, they are ignoring international law.

[-] Gumbyyy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

WP is not forbidden by international law, but only close to civilians

But isn't basically everywhere in Gaza close to civilians? Gaza city has about the same population density as Boston.

[-] angrymouse@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yes it is, I'm not saying the opposite, it was just a fact I found interesting to share.

[-] pimento64@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

Pro tip: you can't head off claims of whataboutism my preemptively trivializing them. It doesn't work that way.

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

WP is forbidden as an incendiary weapon, not as a smoke screen or for illumination. I know the distinction seems silly, but there are actually no WP incendiary weapons in NATO inventories anymore. I don't know about Israel, but I assume the same is true since they have a lot of the same supply chains.

There is a pretty big functional difference though. WP incendiary rounds are basically cluster munitions intended to contain a solid chunk of relatively slow burning WP so that it can settle on objects and remain in contact for an extended period while it burns. This is why it's such a horrific weapon - because it will literally burn through roofs and people and keep burning.

WP smoke and illumination rounds can obviously light fires as well, but they are intended to burn much quicker to produce greater volumes of smoke and light. While you definitely don't want to get a coating of burning WP powder on your roof, it's much less dangerous than a golfball sized sub muntion which will spend a solid 10 minutes at 3000F.

None of the alleged videos of Israel using WP show incendiary rounds IMO. They are all illumination rounds. Though they do often seem to be deployed in a way which is more likely to make fires. Russia does the same thing. They use illumination rounds in a direct fire capacity to blind and discombobulate. This is still probably a war crime.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

WP with a design meant to create shrapnel is absolutely banned. The only legal Phosphorus rounds are ones that have a small bursting charge after striking the ground.

[-] FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

But you know, Israel is the victim here right?

this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
282 points (94.6% liked)

News

23274 readers
1113 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS