M825A1, smokescreens and empty shells

When a group has a track record of lying, an incentive to lie, and suffer nothing for getting caught lying, well, yes.



Here's a BBC transcript
http://www.electronicintifada.net/v2/article1667.shtml
Olenka Frenkiel, a BBC journalist, stated that "In February 2001, a new gas was used in Gaza. A hundred and eighty patients were admitted to hospitals with severe convulsions." Her source appears to be Dr Mohammed Salama.

Apparently Arafat got in on the fun too:
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/15/arafat.gas/

You can find lots of testimony here.

The only problem? It was just tear gas.

The IDF lies too, that's there job, it's called propaganda, it's a part of every war.

In its March, 2003 special report, Israel's Secret Weapon, BBC Television reviewed this series of gas attacks, noting, "The Israeli army has used new unidentified weapons. In February 2001 a new gas was used in Gaza. A hundred and eighty patients were admitted to hospitals with severe convulsions. … Israel is outside chemical and biological weapons treaties and still refuses to say what the new gas was."
In my amateur analysis of the reported comments of victims, eyewitnesses and medical professionals regarding this series of attacks, I identified thirty-three distinct symptoms attributed to the unidentified gas. All but three of these symptoms appear to be typical of nerve gas poisoning. Tareg Bey, a chemical warfare expert at the University of California-Irvine, told the Chicago Reader that the symptoms described to him "all fit really well to nerve gas," though he was puzzled by the reported fragrance and skin rashes.


The IDF could tell us what the gas was and clear up the matter. That hasn't happened. According to the witnesses, they know what tear gas is, and the effects described don't sound like tear gas.


http://www.antiwar.com/orig/brooks.php?articleid=2957
 
The IDF could tell us what the gas was and clear up the matter. That hasn't happened. According to the witnesses, they know what tear gas is, and the effects described don't sound like tear gas.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/brooks.php?articleid=2957

Bwahahahahaha! This is the exact same incident from that thread I linked to earlier. It's already been debunked. In fact, you pretty much conceeded the point that it was tear gas, not nerve gas. But you seem to have forgotten all of that. Again. Even after I reminded you. Twice.
 
Bwahahahahaha! This is the exact same incident from that thread I linked to earlier. It's already been debunked. In fact, you pretty much conceeded the point that it was tear gas, not nerve gas. But you seem to have forgotten all of that. Again. Even after I reminded you. Twice.

For a highly intelligent person, with a very good grasp of science, you seem to turn quite strange on this topic. "Bwahahaha!"? Get a grip, man.

Read the eyewitness testimony. People guessed 'nerve gas' because they had no name for it. The gas is not tear gas according to those who experienced it's effects. The IDF is welcome to clear up the matter, but they won't. Israel is welcome to let arms inspectors in to clear up the matter. But they won't. What we are left with is a gas that is different to tear gas, that has severe effects on people, but it can't be identified. You can "Bwahahaha" all you want, but all you are doing is debating semantics as a means of avoiding the issue.
 
Read the eyewitness testimony. People guessed 'nerve gas' because they had no name for it. The gas is not tear gas according to those who experienced it's effects.

That Doctors Without Borders source I linked to before (which has apparently moved here) makes it quite clear that it WAS tear gas. Let me quote it since you seem to have forgotten what I already told you several years ago, and can't seem to remember even with the links provided:

"The feeling of suffocation following tear gas inhalation provokes a sense of imminent death, aggravated by the belief that the substance is a chemical toxin. We were not familiar with the new teargas canisters. They contain concentrated gas released in greater quantities than the grenades used before, which were made of black rubber and could be gripped and thrown into the distance. The new ones are metal."

This provides an explanation for why a Palestinian might honesty (but incorrectly) believe that this was something other than tear gas. But it wasn't something else. It was tear gas. And while confusion in the heat of the moment on their part may be excusable, your persistence in believing something long-since debunked is not. We've been through this EXACT case before - why am I having to prove this to you again?
 
That Doctors Without Borders source I linked to before (which has apparently moved here) makes it quite clear that it WAS tear gas. Let me quote it since you seem to have forgotten what I already told you several years ago, and can't seem to remember even with the links provided:

"The feeling of suffocation following tear gas inhalation provokes a sense of imminent death, aggravated by the belief that the substance is a chemical toxin. We were not familiar with the new teargas canisters. They contain concentrated gas released in greater quantities than the grenades used before, which were made of black rubber and could be gripped and thrown into the distance. The new ones are metal."

This provides an explanation for why a Palestinian might honesty (but incorrectly) believe that this was something other than tear gas. But it wasn't something else. It was tear gas. And while confusion in the heat of the moment on their part may be excusable, your persistence in believing something long-since debunked is not. We've been through this EXACT case before - why am I having to prove this to you again?

You're not proving anything other than people are doing their best to guess at exactly what was used. Like I said, the IDF could clear this up in a minute, since they are the ones who used it. They don't want to, nor will Israel let inspectors in to see what they are using. Don't blame me for that. I'm not claiming it was a form of nerve gas.
 
You're not proving anything other than people are doing their best to guess at exactly what was used.

:rolleyes: I don't care if they're guessing. They can guess as much as they want. That stuff wasn't nerve gas. But apparently you're now refusing to actually acknowledge that.

Don't blame me for that. I'm not claiming it was a form of nerve gas.

Do you beat your wife? Someone said you beat your wife. I'm not claiming you beat your wife, but why won't you install webcams in your house so we can investigate whether or not you beat your wife?
 
:rolleyes: I don't care if they're guessing. They can guess as much as they want. That stuff wasn't nerve gas. But apparently you're now refusing to actually acknowledge that.



Do you beat your wife? Someone said you beat your wife. I'm not claiming you beat your wife, but why won't you install webcams in your house so we can investigate whether or not you beat your wife?

The symptoms described were quite severe. I call it the equivalent of a beating.
 
The symptoms described were quite severe.

And the description of what happened in Jenin was of a massacre. But it didn't actually happen. Whether out of panic, hysteria, confusion, attention-seeking exaggeration, or malice, the description of symptoms could easily be wrong. To rely upon it when none of the evidence that would actually mark the use of nerve gas (such as, you know, even a single corpse) are present is, well... unfounded. Yet you continue to do so. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that it was not nerve gas.
 
And the description of what happened in Jenin was of a massacre. But it didn't actually happen. Whether out of panic, hysteria, confusion, attention-seeking exaggeration, or malice, the description of symptoms could easily be wrong. To rely upon it when none of the evidence that would actually mark the use of nerve gas (such as, you know, even a single corpse) are present is, well... unfounded. Yet you continue to do so. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that it was not nerve gas.

Why don't you ask me to deny it was farts from invisible pink unicorns? I said I don't know what it was. That's all I have to say, because that's all I can say. There were several instances listed, which seem to have had different descriptions of the gas, and varying effects, none of which seem to be consistent with normal tear gas. Perhaps you can give the IDF and call and ask them to clarify the matter?
 
Human rights group Amnesty International accused Israel of war crimes today, saying its use of white phosphorus munitions in densely populated areas of Gaza was indiscriminate and illegal.
...

White phosphorus is a high-incendiary substance that burns very brightly and for long periods. It frequently is used to produce smoke screens, but can also be used as a weapon, producing extreme burns if it makes contact with skin.
Donatella Rovera, a Middle East researcher with Amnesty International, said Israel repeatedly fired white phosphorous in Gaza in an "inherently indiscriminate" manner.
"Its repeated use in this manner, despite evidence of its indiscriminate effects and its toll on civilians, is a war crime," she said.

http://news.theage.com.au/world/israel-accused-of-gaza-war-crimes-20090120-7kyb.html
 
Why don't you ask me to deny it was farts from invisible pink unicorns?

Would you have similar trouble forming such a denial? I think your comparison is more apt than you intended, because invisible pink unicorn farts is indeed a possibility that we can exclude. Yet you bristle at the suggestion.
 
Would you have similar trouble forming such a denial? I think your comparison is more apt than you intended, because invisible pink unicorn farts is indeed a possibility that we can exclude. Yet you bristle at the suggestion.

I reject you demanding me to say what it was or wasn't, since we have no way of knowing. There was more than one incident of an unusual gas, each with different properties and effects. An expert says one could be nerve gas, another authority says another one may be a different form of tear gas that is stronger. Either way, we don't know. The IDF could clear the matter up in a moment, but it won't say, and it won't allow inspectors in to inspect suspected weapons facilities.
 
http://www.theage.com.au/world/israeli-use-of-white-phosphorus-undeniable-amnesty-20090120-7lmi.html

AMNESTY International has said that Israel's use during the Gaza offensive of white phosphorus — banned under international law for use near civilians — was "clear and undeniable".
Tension eased in Gaza early yesterday as a fragile ceasefire entered its third day. There were no reports of shooting or rockets for the first time since Israel launched its massive assault on the besieged territory on December 27.
"Amnesty International delegates visiting the Gaza Strip found indisputable evidence of widespread use of white phosphorus in densely-populated residential areas in Gaza City and in the north," the rights group said.
"We saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli army," said Christopher Cobb-Smith, a weapons expert touring Gaza as part of a four-person fact-finding team. Human rights groups and medics in Gaza reported treating dozens of people suffering burns caused by white phosphorus during Israel's 22-day offensive in Gaza that killed more than 1300 people.
 
I reject you demanding me to say what it was or wasn't, since we have no way of knowing. There was more than one incident of an unusual gas, each with different properties and effects. An expert says one could be nerve gas, another authority says another one may be a different form of tear gas that is stronger. Either way, we don't know. The IDF could clear the matter up in a moment, but it won't say, and it won't allow inspectors in to inspect suspected weapons facilities.

As someone who has extensive experience of being tear gassed and also extensive biological warfare training. You get different reactions to it depending on many different things. It's not nice however and some people have worse reactions to others and the reactions depend on the location you are affected in.

It could have been a newer form or more strong version of tear gas but I know one thing. It was not nerve gas. Nerve gas kills. Quickly. Even if you survive you are irreparaby damaged. It is not a black or white smoke and is not visible. Does not smell like the descriptions in some of the links either and the effects are also dissimilar to nerve gas especially the eyes and pupils.
 
As someone who has extensive experience of being tear gassed and also extensive biological warfare training. You get different reactions to it depending on many different things. It's not nice however and some people have worse reactions to others and the reactions depend on the location you are affected in.

It could have been a newer form or more strong version of tear gas but I know one thing. It was not nerve gas. Nerve gas kills. Quickly. Even if you survive you are irreparaby damaged. It is not a black or white smoke and is not visible. Does not smell like the descriptions in some of the links either and the effects are also dissimilar to nerve gas especially the eyes and pupils.

Thank you.
 
My principle complaint against Egypt has been that they shot at people fleeing a war zone. Darth tried defending it -- mostly as devil's advocate I think.
No intent to derail, but this is related to those in Gaza being at risk to any munition, WP or otherwise. That there is nowhere to run, Egypt having done what they've done, adds to the desperate condition of far too many in the Gaza Strip.

My standing up for Egypt was on a very clear principle: sovereignty, which I respect, and which is a criterion for joining the UN as a member state. I respect the sovereign rights of Egypt, and Egyptians.

How does this apply to Gaza? Somewhat, given the absurdity of their territorial and governmental situation, which is not the same as the sovereign condition of Egypt or of Israel, the only two neighbors of that useless basket case of a suburb of nowhere in particular, inhabited by a bunch of breeding and desperate people with, apparently, nowhere else to go. They are, all desires for a better future considered, currently nothing better than a welfare state, writ large. Sad only begins to describe the condition there.

Read the stats, FireGarden. In the last two generations, average five births per fertile woman.

If you can't feed them, don't breed them.

How the hell do they grow food for 1.5 million in that miniscule garden spot? Gaza is a disaster itching to happen, this short and nasty war aside, a vignette of destruction which only makes matters worse.

How is the Egyptian government required to solve their problem?

By surrendering their sovereign, Egyptian rights?

No.

I'll be a bit of an ass and ask you this:

Why do you hate Egyptians? :cool:

DR
 
Last edited:
Israel admits using WP:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057361.html

The Israel Defense Forces is investigating whether a reserve paratroops brigade made improper use of phosphorus shells during the fighting in Gaza.

The brigade fired about 20 such shells in a built-up area of northern Gaza.

Aside from this one case, the shells were used very sparingly and, in the army's view, in compliance with international law.

Others disagree with that view.

The BBC has a picture of Beit Lahiya:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7841999.stm

Israel is setting up a war crimes defence team. And IDF officers are banned from being named in the press -- in case they want to take holidays in Europe without being arrested.

Back in 2005, Major General Doron Almog didn't risk getting off his plane:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4237620.stm
 

Back
Top Bottom