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.
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.
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.
Think Napalm's meaner acidic cousin
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.
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.
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. 😂
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.
Preposterous? Didn't you read it? It says white phosphorus. Big difference! /s
All I know is that there was a little fighting before, and now there is a lot of fighting.
BAD! BAD FIGHTING!
Chemical rounds meant to cause injury are banned in the Geneva convention. It's not a separate treaty.
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?
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.
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.
Just to reiterate, cuz it really sounds like some sci-fi alien shit:
Think Napalm's meaner acidic cousin
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.
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.
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. 😂
Reasons that the use of white phosphorous is considered worse than conventional munitions listed in the article (which you also didn't read):
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.
Preposterous? Didn't you read it? It says white phosphorus. Big difference! /s
All I know is that there was a little fighting before, and now there is a lot of fighting.
BAD! BAD FIGHTING!
Chemical rounds meant to cause injury are banned in the Geneva convention. It's not a separate treaty.
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?