Russia allegedly bombing Syrian civilian areas with deadly white phosphorus

[GennGreymane]

http://www.delhidailynews.com/news/R...us-1448950215/

everal reports claim that Russia is bombing the northwest Syria with deadly white phosphorus that kills people by poisoning and burning its victims.


Use of white phosphorus is prohibited under international law in densely populated regions or when deliberately targeting troops because the highly toxic substance can burn through skin and bone.

Shocking images shared on Twitter show the sky allegedly filled with the potentially deadly weapon, as it showers down on the de-facto capital of ISIS, Raqqa. But while Raqqa may be an ISIS bastion, activists on the ground claim that civilians were killed in airstrike, which was described as a 'war crime'. Absorption of the chemical can lead to heart, liver and kidney damage and in severe cases, death.

On November 12, a number of journalists reported that Russia demolished the opposition-controlled city of Idlib with phosphorous.

If the allegations are true, then Russia is maliciously trying to get even with Turkey and determined to crush Daesh without bringing down Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. They are absent-mindedly and horribly hurting the ones who need the most help in this crisis.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama held a meeting today at the climate change summit in Paris. They discussed the continuing conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, as per a Kremlin spokesman.

In the capital Damascus, state media cited President Bashar al-Assad as saying that he is resolute to continue fighting 'terrorism in all its forms' because Syria and its allies are 'confident that eliminating terrorists is the main step in bringing about stability to the region and the entire world.'

[I Push Buttons]

I feel like this thread will very quickly devolve into a discussion about how America uses white phosphorus.

[Vizardlorde]

Well if the ends justify the means they are eliminating a lot of ISIS sources of income. Lots of civs die in war... Not much can be done when their daily life poses a threat to others daily life for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Osmeric]

ISIS is a de facto government. A government that spurns the Geneva Convention.

Why should the citizens of a polity with a government that spurns the constraints imposed on warfare be protected by such constraints?

[StayTuned]

Well if the ends justify the means they are eliminating a lot of ISIS sources of income. Lots of civs die in war... Not much can be done when their daily life poses a threat to others daily life for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As a modern civilization we'd like to think we've moved past the WW2 mentality of "well fuck it, civilians die".

That's why we claim to have ethically improved since then. If we throw toxic gasses in war zones, how much have we truly improved?

If it's true that Russia uses such means, it is to be condemned. But unfortunately there's absolutely zero I can do about it. I could go and protest. How much do you think would this change?

[Shadowmelded]

ISIS is a de facto government. A government that spurns the Geneva Convention.

Why should the citizens of a polity with a government that spurns the constraints imposed on warfare be protected by such constraints?

Because the Geneva Convention is more about how we conduct ourselves than how others do? And to carry on the analogy to a Government, because they didn't elect them?

[Aeula]

If it gets the job done then so be it.

[Ryme]

I'm fairly sure it was already found to be Russian incendiary rockets, not white phosphorous. The laws around using incendiary rockets are very different from white phosphorous, but I'm not exactly certain whether or not they'd be legal here.

I believe it has to do with the risk of causalities but someone feel free to correct me here.

[Osmeric]

Because the Geneva Convention is more about how we conduct ourselves than how others do? And to carry on the analogy to a Government, because they didn't elect them?

To quote that unimpeachable source Wikipedia:

The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.

As for your second point: there is a serious penalty to allowing yourself to be subjugated and used for evil. Resistance to the such as ISIS is risky; capitulation to them needs to carry a similar risk.

[Sunseeker]

As for your second point: there is a serious penalty to allowing yourself to be subjugated and used for evil. Resistance to the such as ISIS is risky; capitulation to them needs to carry a similar risk.

Refraining from using chemical weapons against ISIS is hardly "capitulation".

[Osmeric]

Refraining from using chemical weapons against ISIS is hardly "capitulation".

I'm referring to the capitulation of the local civilian population to ISIS.

[Sunseeker]

I'm referring to the capitulation of the local civilian population to ISIS.

That tends to be what happens when people without guns run into people with guns.

[Shadowmelded]

To quote that unimpeachable source Wikipedia:

Touche. That doesn't get us out of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conven...tional_Weapons though.

As for your second point: there is a serious penalty to allowing yourself to be subjugated and used for evil. Resistance to the such as ISIS is risky; capitulation to them needs to carry a similar risk.

I mean it's debatable how much they 'allowed' themselves to be subjugated.

[Deleted]

Well, just like Afghanistan and Iraq were testing grounds for American weapons, so is Syria a testing ground for Russian weapons.

[Osmeric]

I mean it's debatable how much they 'allowed' themselves to be subjugated.

They could have fought them. They could have run. These are risky acts. If they instead decide "I'll just pay my taxes to these guys, it's safer" they are selfishly enabling the actions of ISIS in order to save themselves these risks. Putting civilian populations under ISIS at risk balances this moral hazard.

BTW, this line of reasoning also says we should be accepting of refugees, although it also suggests we should insist that refugees who are able to fight ISIS be drafted to do so (and if they are able but unwilling, they be rejected as refugees.)

[Deleted]

Because the Geneva Convention is more about how we conduct ourselves than how others do? And to carry on the analogy to a Government, because they didn't elect them?

both of these are first strike rules for signatories only. (nation states is what i mean)
In short, the Syrian state, or its actors, can do whatever it wants to the rebels.

[BuckSparkles]

I feel like this thread will very quickly devolve into a discussion about how America uses white phosphorus.

I feel like many threads end up in "Country B or group C did this, BUT WHO CARES AMERICA DID IT TOO."


You are not exactly wrong.

[Kellhound]

I'm fairly sure it was already found to be Russian incendiary rockets, not white phosphorous. The laws around using incendiary rockets are very different from white phosphorous, but I'm not exactly certain whether or not they'd be legal here.

I believe it has to do with the risk of causalities but someone feel free to correct me here.

WP can be the warhead filler of incendiary rockets.

[Crispin]

Surely posters like cybran wont like this, when you consider how much sympathy they and Russia had for civilians in Ukraine.

[TexasRules]

As a modern civilization we'd like to think we've moved past the WW2 mentality of "well fuck it, civilians die".

That's why we claim to have ethically improved since then. If we throw toxic gasses in war zones, how much have we truly improved?

If it's true that Russia uses such means, it is to be condemned. But unfortunately there's absolutely zero I can do about it. I could go and protest. How much do you think would this change?

It can be easily debated that ISIS does not conform to any definition of civilized, especially when it comes to warfare or the treatment of human beings.