Frankly i'm stunned, i didn't think there was an ounce of independant back bone left in parliament, maybe now we can stop jumping to heel every time the states shouts "here boy".
Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack
- Thread starter Craig1981
- Start date
Frankly i'm stunned, i didn't think there was an ounce of independant back bone left in parliament, maybe now we can stop jumping to heel every time the states shouts "here boy".
It is banned from use as an anti personnel weapon and in civillian areas
I linked a doucment in a post a few pages back that details where its use is cited as illegal and considered in the same weight as a CW although it does not fall under schedule 1, 2 or 3 of the CWC.
it seems like it worked really doesn't it, no public support ministers voted no, and no action will be taken.
unlike Iraq no vote no public support straight into action.
We ****ed up, we learned a lesson we haven't repeated it.
Whats 'WP'?
except its use is perfectly permitted as a smoke screen and other uses.
white phosphorous.
google "shake and bake wp" for it's offensive use. but also it can produce a smoke screen thats instantaneous instead of slow to build up.
terrible stuff, but not even remotely comparable to sarin, its like comparing a hand gun to an artillery shell.
first point: when they can prove without any reasonable doubt it was assad then they can roll the strikes in
second point: yes, its still a CW attack that killed civillian albeit less numbers, but the act is still the same, willfully and knowingly using chemicals against civllians. What if the last CW attack in damascus was low rent and only 100 people died would you say to yourself 'oh well it was small time' ? If your answer to that question is no, then why don't people think the same way about what happened in Lebabnon, Gaza ?
You either abhor the use of all types of chemical based weapons aimed at inficlting death / injury or you don't. There are no shades of grey when it comes to their use as there is only ever one outcome.
correct, but not permitted in areas where there are civilians, so its use is limited to military targets. Whilst it is accepted that use against such targets will result in the death of military personnel it is widely accepted that this is sometimes part of war.
However specifically using them in urban/civilian areas or as a direct anti personnel muntion is strictly prohibited and is in direct contravention of several agreed international laws and conventions.
so whats the difference between high explosives which will melt flesh or send shrapnel though it at velocities which tear limbs from bodies, and WP which will again melt flesh and cause severe burns on contact?
it seems very much the same reasoning behind why hollow points are legal for polcie and civilians but illegal for soldiers.
would you demand that our police force be condemned for war crimes because they used munitions banned in war on a regular basis?
gas is understandably different because of it's wildly uncontrollable behavior and its ability to take out people who are sheltering out of combat.
So show me the court case?
the only similarity is that you can loosely refer to them both as 'chemical weapons' - aside from that there is no comparison
WP use in warfare is still legal - yes it is very dubious to use it in civilian areas and they shouldn't do that - but its in no way similar to the use of nerve agent - you're comparing a weapon that produces hot smoke and causes nasty burning with one that can wipe out all life in a large area rapidly and indiscriminately. Aside from the use of the word 'chemical' to describe them they're not really comparable at all...
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 6,413
- Location
- SE England
I find it quite strange why this MP vote wasn't conducted until after the UNs findings were published. 
Is that all some people care about? And is Britain a 'great power'? We're like a yapping Jack Terrier trying to imitate real world powers like the US.
Frankly I find it embarrassing at times.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
I find it quite strange why this MP vote wasn't conducted until after the UNs findings were published.
Well in case they were "pro assad" you know.
I actually feel proud since we supposed to be "democratic" society where citizens decide the fate of our government course and thats what has been done.
I know its over the top but its still nice to know they arent bonkers enough to go to war when so many people are against it.
Russians said that clearly the "normal" people of UK are smart enough to understand in what kind of bs we were getting into, and its nice to know that average people helped influence the decision...
it never happens, because of the potential dual use of the muntions. WP use is a grey area (no pun intended), but its effects on health and potential for harm are very high.
on its use in Gaza
If you are using them for their designated purpose and 'your gudiance system fails' and you take out civillians / civillian infrastructure I guess you are immune from a court case.
Under laws of warfare, white phosphorous, which is not considered a chemical weapon, is permissable for creating smoke screens and illuminating battlefields at night. What isn't permissable is targeting of civilians / instalations in civilian built up areas
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9244&context=expresso
page 67 covers this under reference to article 2.1 and 2.2 of protocol 3 of The 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects
I would assume this also covers things like blockbusters / high payload conventional muntions that have the potential to be fairly indiscriminate if used in built up areas.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
USA/France will do the deal...
Or this whole thing was a major bluff right from the beginning, since after Libya we got blamed for going to war just for Oil and this was just nice PR campaign... To say that
"We wanted to bomb the **** out, but public said no, look at us we are truly democratic country"
There was few public exercises on how to make China and Russia look evil, kids are suffocating from chemical weapons and they are vetoing everything....
Win-Win situation you know, in any way it would swing
Actually did anyone hear that Egypt closed suez canal for US ships going to Syria??? Since they decided to honor their long alliance with Syria? Maybe that played a role, since with Russian anti-ship missiles and S-300`s there was no other safe way to bombard Syria apart from hiding somewhere out of range of russian made missiles.
Last edited:
well innocent until proven guilty applies to nations just as much as individuals.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
well it seems the "right" countries as much as "right" individuals are a lot of the time guilty but proven innocent....