|
cochise posted:The other major news outlets are pretty much parroting the same story from earlier and now CNN is pushing hard with "high probability" breaking news captions everywhere. Well the Israelis seem to confirm it, which may be no more or less, but I can't help but wonder if they know something more than everyone else does at the moment.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
The video that al Jazeera has on their front page about the incident has a doctor treating the victims saying it looks like a phosphorus munition with possible chemical agents and had "a leading chemical weapons expert" stating that the evidence is not consistent with the effects of any chemical agent that Syria is known to have in their arsenal. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/03/2013319143137475947.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:The video that al Jazeera has on their front page about the incident has a doctor treating the victims saying it looks like a phosphorus munition with possible chemical agents and had "a leading chemical weapons expert" stating that the evidence is not consistent with the effects of any chemical agent that Syria is known to have in their arsenal. I dunno about phosphorus, it doesn't cause vomiting. Phosphorus gas is just a standard smoke grenade. And the written article has the medic believing it was a pesticide. I wonder if perhaps that's a translation error.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Phosphorus gas is just a standard smoke grenade. No it 'just' isn't. It was used to horrific effect in Operation Cast Lead, burning civilians and killing some, including women and children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
Yeah I thought it refers to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus "Effects on people White phosphorus can cause injuries and even death in three ways: by burning deep into tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke, and by being ingested. Extensive exposure by burning and ingestion is fatal."
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:No it 'just' isn't. It was used to horrific effect in Operation Cast Lead, burning civilians and killing some, including women and children. This is an I/P free thread. THE AWESOME GHOST posted:Yeah I thought it refers to this: White phosphorus is called white phosphorus because it's white and makes white smoke. That smoke is no more or less deadly than petrol smoke. Obviously if you sit around breathing in petrol fumes, or drink it, you'll choke and die. Phosphorus can also be used as an incendiary, which is the basis of the complaints against it, but it's not a chemical weapon. The following video should be required viewing for anyone talking about phosphorus. Note that the chemist remains alive throughout the entirety of the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oke8GinWDG8 Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
Sergg posted:From everything I've read, the Bosnian Serbs did, in fact, use deliriants on Bosnian forces retreating from Srebrenica, and there are hundreds of witnesses that testified about it. Never heard about the Kosovar accusations and this is the first time I've heard of the alleged 'debunking' of the gas attacks earlier this year. source? To my knowledge there's never been any serious evidence of actual deployment of bz. A cursory google search mostly turned up newspaper articles written at the time, with weird allegations like colored smoke induced their hallucinations, which is odd because bz is colorless and odorless. Witness testimony is the only evidence I've seen, and I'm skeptical a witness could accurately identify the effects of bz exposure. If someone was exposed to industrial chemicals, can we expect them to know the difference between it's effects and the effects of a chemical weapon? Really there isn't much to debunk, like the only evidence of deliriant use is an unnamed source in a secret U.S. embassy cable. There might have been a chemical weapon attack but if there was it was a nerve agent, which makes sense, as those are serious weapons with a history of combat use. Here's the New Yorker's take on the incident: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/the-case-of-agent-15-did-syria-use-a-nerve-agent.html quote:The key symptoms described here are consistent with poisoning from a nerve-agent-type drug. Behavioral changes and vomiting can be caused by many chemicals, but when combined with other symptoms, a fairly clear picture emerges: miosis and muscle pain, along with death triggered by a buildup of bronchial secretions, are all associated with nerve-agent poisoning. Typically, one would also observe muscle twitching and convulsions—perhaps the doctor’s reference to “seizures” is meant to account for this. But the most important detail provided by Dr. Abdo is something that he indicates later in Rogin’s story: doctors had been treating victims with atropine. If such treatment was having an ameliorative effect, then there is no way that the chemical in question was an anticholinergic, because dosing a casualty with atropine in such instances would only add fuel to the fire, augmenting the toxicity. Atropine, however, is the classic medical therapy—often combined with oximes—for nerve-agent-type poisoning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 09:02
|
|
|
Kaal posted:This is an I/P free thread. The incendiary part is why there's a pretty strong consensus on it being banned in that capacity, against civilians. In that specific capacity, it is generally considered a chemical weapon under the terms of the CWC. However, it is not an issue to use it as, say, illumination or smoke cover, or for the most part to reduce military structures or equipment by fire. Military use (e.g. dropping flaming chunks of WP onto a column of soldiers with the intent of burning them as opposed to illuminating the area or providing smoke) is somewhat less regulated and while it's generally considered somewhere between dickish and immoral, it's not explicitly illegal in the way it is in use against civilian populations/areas, or even mixed populations. "Chemical Weapons" is less a term of existence and more a term of use. In that sense, WP is not a CW when used in non-weapon capacity, even if the incendiary effects are a secondary effect of intended use. It is if you are trying to use it to burn anything civilian. This is generally considered the 'out' for users of WP for incendiary purposes against, say, mixed populations where combatants are among civilian population. Your interpretation may be derived from a given country's view of a specific subsection of the CCCW pertaining to airborne delivery of incendiaries. That is, the view of a non-signatory to the Convention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:The incendiary part is why there's a pretty strong consensus on it being banned in that capacity, against civilians. In that specific capacity, it is generally considered a chemical weapon under the terms of the CWC. You're confused. And civilians shouldn't be attacked in the first place. But the Chemical Weapons Convention doesn't consider phosphorus to be a chemical weapon. What you're indirectly referring to is Protocol III of the Geneva Convention, which regulates incendiary weapons usage against civilian targets. quote:"Chemical Weapons" is less a term of existence and more a term of use. In that sense, WP is not a CW when used in non-weapon capacity, even if the incendiary effects are a secondary effect of intended use. It is if you are trying to use it to burn anything civilian. This is generally considered the 'out' for users of WP for incendiary purposes against, say, mixed populations where combatants are among civilian population. The CWC and a number of other states and organizations have lists of chemical weapons. It is a very clearly defined term. WP is not on those lists, because it is not a chemical weapon. Napalm is also not a chemical weapon. They are both incendiary weapons, and subject to a separate body of law. Even if you cannot recognize that differentiation, it is a fundamental element of international wartime law. I would again suggest that you watch the above video, which scientifically displays the properties of white and red phosphorus; you'll clearly note that the gas it releases when burning, phosphorus pentoxide, is not significantly poisonous (as compared to chemical weapons such as sarin). Here's another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk5aXEvmTbc quote:Your interpretation may be derived from a given country's view of a specific subsection of the CCCW pertaining to airborne delivery of incendiaries. That is, the view of a non-signatory to the Convention. Again, this is a I/P free thread. Take it elsewhere. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
WP is illegal as it is used by the Israelis on the Palestinians, etc, but not because it's used as chem but because it's used as way to burn holes in people. I GUESS you could make it into a chemical weapon, but I don't know if that's ever been done. It's a double use smoke/incendiary weapon, but not chemical. Israel once dropped WP on an entire school full of kids but I don't think anyone was hurt by the smoke so that should be evidence enough that Kaal probably is right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:WP is illegal as it is used by the Israelis on the Palestinians, etc, but not because it's used as chem but because it's used as way to burn holes in people. I GUESS you could make it into a chemical weapon, but I don't know if that's ever been done. It's a double use smoke/incendiary weapon, but not chemical. Israel once dropped WP on an entire school full of kids but I don't think anyone was hurt by the smoke so that should be evidence enough that Kaal probably is right. The problem with making it a chemical weapon is that the smoke simply isn't that poisonous. It's a desiccant that reacts with oxygen to create relatively mild acids, but it disperses quickly (since it reacts strongly with the oxygen in the air) and it's a far cry from the kind of widespread lethality that is required from a chemical weapon. Indeed it is equated with the toxicity of gas fumes; you can imagine the difficulty of creating a chemical weapon out of your car's exhaust system. Wikipedia posted:The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m³, the same as fuel oil fumes. By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m³.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Kaal posted:
As long as you're discussing WP you're going to have to tolerate examples of its use in recent history. I'm sure you're all mature enough not to let it turn into a discussion of the merits of the conflict itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Fallom posted:As long as you're discussing WP you're going to have to tolerate examples of its use in recent history. I'm sure you're all mature enough not to let it turn into a discussion of the merits of the conflict itself. I think that thesis has been pretty solidly disproved. But it's the mods' call not mine. Until then, I'm not going to respond to something I/P related since it just ends in poo poo posting and rounds of probations. But I'm happy to talk about phosphorus, and there's plenty of other examples to use since it's pretty commonly used. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Oh and here I thought posts would be about Syria. Kaal since I lack any context, are you Israeli or a dualie?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Kaal since I lack any context, are you Israeli or a dualie? Nope not at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Aw hell I don't care. So more importantly anything new regarding CW or just the same AP reports getting recycled, anything via twitter or youtube? Marshal Prolapse fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The problem with making it a chemical weapon is that the smoke simply isn't that poisonous. It's a desiccant that reacts with oxygen to create relatively mild acids, but it disperses quickly (since it reacts strongly with the oxygen in the air) and it's a far cry from the kind of widespread lethality that is required from a chemical weapon. Indeed it is equated with the toxicity of gas fumes; you can imagine the difficulty of creating a chemical weapon out of your car's exhaust system. Slight correction: the elemental phosphorus is what reacts with oxygen. The white P2O5 smoke reacts with water to make phosphoric acid. You probably know that and just mistyped. Phosphoric acid itself is a moderate acid and not particularly hazardous. Inhaling P2O5 smoke would dry out your throat and taste sour, but it would take inhaling a whole lot of it to start doing tissue damage. That's possible, but not likely. Your analysis is basically correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Slight correction: the elemental phosphorus is what reacts with oxygen. The white P2O5 smoke reacts with water to make phosphoric acid. You probably know that and just mistyped. Good point, my mistake. I should probably re-watch my videos 
Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Don't we have allies in the region? Can't the Iraqi army invade Syria? The Iraqi army is still putting itself together and isn't in shape to invade anything at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
WP is not a chemical weapon and the only people who claim that it is are either dumb or have an axe to grind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Squalid posted:source? To my knowledge there's never been any serious evidence of actual deployment of bz. A cursory google search mostly turned up newspaper articles written at the time, with weird allegations like colored smoke induced their hallucinations, which is odd because bz is colorless and odorless. Witness testimony is the only evidence I've seen, and I'm skeptical a witness could accurately identify the effects of bz exposure. If someone was exposed to industrial chemicals, can we expect them to know the difference between it's effects and the effects of a chemical weapon? I did further reading on the subject and you're right. There wasn't BZ used on the fleeing column of Bosniak men. They described strange behavior like people getting naked, shooting each other, or killing themselves right there on the spot. Some of this (suicides) can be accounted for by the desperate and mentally exhausting situation they were in where men had just lost their families, and others (shooting each other) can be accounted for by Serb infiltrators in civilian clothing who continually attacked the column of men, making it appear as though they were attacking each other. Don't know why any of them got naked though. EDIT: It's really difficult to know for 100%, considering that the vast majority of the column of Bosniak men died before they reached their lines again. Sergg fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think that thesis has been pretty solidly disproved. But it's the mods' call not mine. Until then, I'm not going to respond to something I/P related since it just ends in poo poo posting and rounds of probations. When I mentioned Operation Cast Lead, I was only using it as an example of why white phosphorus is more than just a smoke grenade as you've mentioned - it's the most recent solid example of white phosphorous causing real harm and damage, and as such cannot be dismissed so easily. I'm sure there are other examples but this one jumps to mind immediately because it was widely covered and a lot of people will recognize it. In no way was I trying to make a point about Israel, just that I was making a point that white phosphorous is far more harmful than you imply it to be. Israel's use of it in Operation Cast Lead just happens to be the most clear and recent example of it. There was no need to get so defensive about it and post five times regarding it since then. You've clearly earned that avatar. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Don't know why any of them got naked though. Paradoxical Undressing maybe what was the weather like?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Pretty interesting reaction to the criticisms of al-Jazeera's Syria coverage. Donatella Della Ratta, the author, has written some other good stuff on Syria you should read. http://mediaoriente.com/2013/03/20/the-al-jazeera-controversy-over-syria-and-why-we-should-say-no-to-nihilism/ It also includes some pro-regime images attacking al-Jazeera.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Kaal posted:You're confused. And civilians shouldn't be attacked in the first place. But the Chemical Weapons Convention doesn't consider phosphorus to be a chemical weapon. What you're indirectly referring to is Protocol III of the Geneva Convention, which regulates incendiary weapons usage against civilian targets. You completely missed the crux of what I was saying. Using WP as smoke or flares, or as an incendiary against 'things that are not civilians,' are not considered unlawful uses or even considered harmful as you pointed out. It's when you, say, drop bombs designed to scatter burning WP at ground level on groups of people (and even then it's generally valid against military personnel) it becomes a chemical weapon. A toxic pesticide may not be a chemical weapon if you're just trying to kill foliage, but if you're caught dropping it into the civilian population in a city, it's going to be considered use of a chemical weapon. Same with WP. It's just that it isn't a very effective use outside of psychological effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:You completely missed the crux of what I was saying. Using WP as smoke or flares, or as an incendiary against 'things that are not civilians,' are not considered unlawful uses or even considered harmful as you pointed out. It's when you, say, drop bombs designed to scatter burning WP at ground level on groups of people (and even then it's generally valid against military personnel) it becomes a chemical weapon. A toxic pesticide may not be a chemical weapon if you're just trying to kill foliage, but if you're caught dropping it into the civilian population in a city, it's going to be considered use of a chemical weapon. Same with WP. It's just that it isn't a very effective use outside of psychological effect. You're misusing the term "chemical weapon". There are no circumstances under which WP would be considered as chemical weapon. A chemical weapon would be one that acts to poison people directly, and white phosphorus is not capable of doing that. It is a chemical, and it is a weapon, but it is not a "chemical weapon". It is an incendiary weapon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Xandu posted:
Well, that's an alarming image. (Over a year old though it apparently is.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You're misusing the term "chemical weapon". There are no circumstances under which WP would be considered as chemical weapon. A chemical weapon would be one that acts to poison people directly, and white phosphorus is not capable of doing that. Ah this derail takes me back to the days of 2005, arguing with a greek guy who insisted that depleted uranium was a nuclear weapon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Did anyone hear reports about a second chemical attack near Damacas? I didn't hear about this yesterday at all, and that is when the article is from. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/19/syria-chemical-weapons-second-attack-damascus quote:They also state regime forces fired chemical bombs on Damascus, causing "nausea, vomiting, headache, violent and hysterical paralysis of the nerves." Three have died so far, they said in an email to Sakka. They sent this video which appears to depict a man undergoing treatment for chemical exposure: http://youtu.be/UwbFPMMxEjY Marshal Prolapse fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:You completely missed the crux of what I was saying. Using WP as smoke or flares, or as an incendiary against 'things that are not civilians,' are not considered unlawful uses or even considered harmful as you pointed out. It's when you, say, drop bombs designed to scatter burning WP at ground level on groups of people (and even then it's generally valid against military personnel) it becomes a chemical weapon. A toxic pesticide may not be a chemical weapon if you're just trying to kill foliage, but if you're caught dropping it into the civilian population in a city, it's going to be considered use of a chemical weapon. Same with WP. It's just that it isn't a very effective use outside of psychological effect. The lead in a standard pistol bullet is also toxic, and will poison and eventually kill a victim if it is not treated and removed. Indeed this is enough of a problem that some hunting preserves mandate non-toxic bullets that do not contain lead, so as to preserve the environment and protect the game. That does not make it a chemical weapon. Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The lead in a standard pistol bullet is also toxic, and will poison and eventually kill a victim if it is not treated and removed. That does not make it a chemical weapon. Fire is a chemical process so incendiary weapons are chemical weapons 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Fire is a chemical process so incendiary weapons are chemical weapons Fire involves physics and atoms with nuclei, so all fires are nuclear weapons. gfanikf posted:Did anyone hear reports about a second chemical attack near Damacas? I didn't hear about this yesterday at all, and that is when the article is from. This article blames the alleged chemical attack as being organophosphate pesticides, which are completely different from White Phosphorous. This is much more plausible than phosphorus - organophosphates being much more common and relatively toxic in large doses - and confirms for me that the WP derail was based on a translation error as expected. It would also explain the relatively low lethality rate. Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
The PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan has asked armed members of the PKK to withdraw from Turkey and to start a peace process with the Turkish government, effectively ending a 30 year conflict with Turkey. It's truly a historic day for Turkey, and if it sticks will mean big changes in Turkey, mostly for the better. This isn't a popular move by the government, but Erdogan is hoping his gamble will pay off, probably more for himself than Turkey, depending on who you ask.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
Here's more on today's announcementquote:Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan declares ceasefire with Turkey
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
This is a pretty big deal. But how much do you think it means we're looking at a partition of Iraq?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
You know, this is all well and good, but part of me thinks that there was some sort of deal made where Kurdistan is made from carving up Syria (and maybe Iraq). The PKK withdraw, but where are the withdrawing to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
The PKK leaders are in Iraqi Kurdistan I think. Many of the PKK fighters are Turkish citizens, so maybe an amnesty is in the make. The last amnesty didn't work out so well though, with many of them still facing trial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
It appears that BBC Weather's twitter account was hijacked by a group calling itself the Syrian Electronic Army. http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/03/21/bbc-weather-twitter-account-hackedsyrian-electronic-army/
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Highspeeddub posted:It appears that BBC Weather's twitter account was hijacked by a group calling itself the Syrian Electronic Army. They better be careful. NATO just released guidelines stipulating that military response is A OK for poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
Here it is, my rather lengthy profile in the Guardian, which should appear in the paper tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 17:48
|
|