Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2013, 12:59 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 12:52 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 12:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you did it out of context. And incompletely.

Bull shit. I copied/pasted your ENTIRE post. Show me where I truncated or edited anything you said. My adding commentary to your posts is in an entirely different league from what Cjlr did, where he just fabricated statements that were not even similar to anything that was said, and falsely attributed them. Note that you STILL refuse to copy/paste where IandI said anything like "Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately". Your refusal proves you accept that Cjlr completely fabricated that statement, which is nothing like me copy/pasting your entire post and adding my commentary.

Now, in reality I do NOT think that you and Cjlr are actually such monsters that you really think it's cool to burn people alive. Instead, what I think is going on is that you and Cjlr are SOOO stubborn, closed-minded and unwilling to consider any new perspective that ANYTHING IandI, a communist, or myself, a libertarian, says, you will refuse accept, no matter how blatantly obvious. Even when we make a statement that is SOOOO uncontroversial, that burning people alive is bad, you STILL insist that we can't possibly be true and cannot bring yourself to agree. Thus, if we cannot get you to accept that dumping chemical weapons on a residential neighborhood is bad, how on earth will I _EVER_ get you to accept something infinitely more nuanced, like that US monetary policy is creating inequality and poverty?

I don't actually care what you think.

You are such an ideologically-bound fundie libertarian that you can't see any other viewpoint as honest. Any slight disagreement to you is opposition or lies.

You rant on.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 12:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't actually care what you think. You are such an ideologically-bound fundie libertarian that you can't see any other viewpoint as honest. Any slight disagreement to you is opposition or lies.

I will just keep repeating the challenge until you either (a) acknowledge that Cjlr just fabricated statements and falsely attributed them (in which case who is ideollogically-bound), or (b) copy/paste where IandI said anything like "Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately".

I've challenged you and Cjlr on this 3 times, and your continued proves you're just making this stuff up and falsely attributing it, which just supports my assertion that you're so unwilling to open your mind that you not only will never accept the obvious flaws in issues like monetary policy, you cannot even bring yourself to accept that it was bad when Israel burned a bunch of civilians alive with chemical weapons. You're THAT closed-minded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 01:16 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 01:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 12:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't actually care what you think. You are such an ideologically-bound fundie libertarian that you can't see any other viewpoint as honest. Any slight disagreement to you is opposition or lies.

I will just keep repeating the challenge until you either (a) acknowledge that Cjlr just fabricated statements and falsely attributed them (in which case who is ideollogically-bound), or (b) copy/paste where IandI said anything like "Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately".

I've challenged you and Cjlr on this 3 times, and your continued proves you're just making this stuff up and falsely attributing it, which just supports my assertion that you're so unwilling to open your mind that you not only will never accept the obvious flaws in issues like monetary policy, you cannot even bring yourself to accept that it was bad when Israel burned a bunch of civilians alive with chemical weapons. You're THAT closed-minded.

I am not cjlr's keeper, so I don't think that's my responsibility.

I made no statements about any of that - you are raving.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  This only applies to the first time Chas made the false claim, in post #10. However, we replied and included direct links and quotes proving that WP IS a chemical weapon.

Except you didn't.

If its chemical toxicity is weaponized it is a chemical weapon. If it is used as an incendiary then it is not (notwithstanding that use of any weapon against non-combatants is criminal by definition).

This is as stated in the link you gave.

It does not say what you seem to think it says.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Whether Chas WILLFULLY ignored the facts, or if his brain subconsciously blocked out the facts as a defense mechanism, that I obviously cannot tell. However, it is still generally considered lying even if it is due to such an underlying mental disorder.

Oh, we're accusing people of mental disorders, now?

Stay classy, my friend.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  How about another handy tidbit: white phosphorus is not defined as a chemical weapon in the Geneva Conventions

http://www.opcw.org/index.php?eID=dam_fr...docID=6357

As always, I defer to the actual text rather than just accepting your self-serving paraphrasing (article II, page 3):

Oh, please. Let's do this.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  “Toxic chemical means: Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all
such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.”

So WP and Tungsten ARE toxic chemicals:

Tungsten is an element Wink.

But yes, it is toxic. And?

I invite you to provide a single reference wherein tungsten is classified as a chemical weapon.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  “Chemical Weapons means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;”

Let us consider the actual details. We may begin with your reading:
(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So, whenever WP (or Tungsten or any other chemical) is used to cause “death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm”, it IS a chemical weapon under the Geneva Conventions.

And, immediately, we run into a rather large problem.

The key line (which you alter so as to completely change the meaning) is this:
"through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals."

Do you know what that means? It means that use of a toxic substance does not qualify as a chemical weapon under the law of the Geneva Conventions.

Allow me to present another example, since tungsten went over your head.

Is lead a chemical weapon?

Lead is toxic. Lead is used in bullets. Are bullets chemical weapons?

Because last I checked - no, they aren't.

(nor tungsten; nor phosphorus in incendiaries)

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Now read I and I's quote: “white phosphorous that is dropped from fighter jets isn't used a smoke screen and the usage of it as was used by Israel is a chemical weapon.”

Note that you don't dispute that Israel used WP as a weapon, because even Israel, after initially denying it, finally conceded when the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch provided proof that “white phosphorous bomb shells exploded over populated civilian areas, including a crowded Palestinian refugee camp and a United Nations school where civilians were seeking refuge.... Amnesty International said a fact-finding team found 'indisputable evidence of the widespread use of white phosphorus' in crowded civilian residential areas of Gaza City and elsewhere in the territory.” And journalists documented civilians being burned alive by Israel's dumping of WP on residential neighborhoods.

Yes. And?

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Of course I read it before commenting. I copied/pasted it above, and it says exactly what I said it does.

Guy. It doesn't. See above.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Look, it's impossible to prove 100% what Israel's intentions were dropping WP on residential neighborhoods, and whether they were just really stupid and inept thinking they could fire WP bombs from jets to make smokescreens, or if they were specifically trying to harm people. However, the act was so heinous, so widely condemned by the UN and humanitarian organizations, any compassionate person, imo, would condemn it.

Yes. And?

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  A says: It's bad that Israel burned people alive with WP bombs
B says: There's no law against it. WP isn't a chemical weapon
A says: Wrong: Here's a copy of the Geneva Convention proving that ANY use of chemicals like this is illegal.
B says: [ignore the facts and repeat] There's no law against it. WP isn't a chemical weapon.
A says: Here's the reports from the UN, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. YES, this WAS a breach of the Geneva Conventions.
B says: [ignore the facts and repeat] There's no law against it. WP isn't a chemical weapon.
A says: Why do you keep defending burning people alive with chemical weapons
B says: I'm not. I'm just stating the facts.

Welcome to fantasyland, population you.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Lies, lies and more lies. Seriously you think you can just lie like this and nobody is going to call you out on it? When did I and I ever say this? Please copy/paste.

You know you can read his posting history re: Isreal for yourself, right?
Like, run a search or something. It's before your time, but still.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You have the audacity to complain that I put your words in your mouth, and then look at this statement you hypocrite! All I and I said was the factual statement that Israel fired WP bombs from jets, and that using them like this is not reasonably considered a “smoke screen”. That statement above only exists in your fantasy world.

It doesn't exist in this thread. It needn't even exist explicitly for it to be an accurate summation of his opinions.

I like how you've latched onto this one sidetrack, though.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, you did. Chas wrote “White phosphorous is not classified as a chemical weapon.” (which means, it's not illegal) You wrote: “Pointing out that further restriction on the use of chemical weapons, without a change in definitions of such, would have no effect on the use of white phosphorus, which is not currently classified as a chemical weapon...” (which also means, it's not illegal).

Yes. That is so. And?

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, whenever A condemns an action, and B keeps repeating “there's no law against it” even after being shown that there IS a law against, it is defending A's action.

Uh, guy?

Even if we allow the (incorrect) interpretation of the law to stand, it still doesn't constitute a defense.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  If you saw someone beating a dog with a bat and commented how horrible it was, and I said “No law against it”, and you showed me the animal cruelty laws, but I just stubbornly kept saying “No law against it”, YES, that is tacitly defending the beating of the dog.

Uh... no. Not it isn't.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The fact is that I and I, like the UN and all humanitarian organizations, condemned Israel's burning of Palestinians alive with chemical weapons. And you STILL refuse to accept the facts and keep defending this action. This thread is the substantiation.

Guy. That's not a citation. Let me know where I've apparently "defended" use of incendiary weapons against civilians.

No, it's okay. I'll wait.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Sure you didn't explicitly express your love of killing innocent people, but you DO keep defending it!

Apparently, having convinced yourself of this, I will never be able to dissuade you.

Well, good luck with that attitude.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, even in your last post you STILL keep insisting that Israel didn't break any laws, violate any conventions, or commit any crimes, by burning alive innocent Palestinian civilians!

Citation needed.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Look, on the political views thread I accurately predicted that the only time we would ever disagree on a policy was when you were using threats of violence against people to force them into doing things against their will. BUT, back then I never imagined that we'd actually disagree on actual violence using chemical weapons to burn populations alive.

I like how you keep saying "chemical weapons".

Look, "fire" isn't a chemical weapon.

Burning people is nonetheless bad.

Never in my life did I ever imagine that to be a sentence I'd have to utter.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  When I and I pointed out such a heinous action as burning innocent people alive, something so widely condemned by human rights organizations, I seriously thought it would be uncontroversial. I seriously expected that even you and Chas would have responded "Yes, that was abhorrent, and a black mark on Israel". I never imagined you'd be SOOO into violence as to actually defend such an action.

If me stating, explicitly and directly, what I think is not sufficient to change your mind; if you think you know what I think better than I do; if your unshakeable self-congratulating conviction is such that nothing I have said or could possibly say will be interpreted honestly...

Well. What a way to live.

(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  This is why I see you as a club-wielding neanderthal.

And according to you, that makes wood a chemical weapon.

Weeping

Do you deny any of the delusional character assassination you've engaged in?
Do you admit that maybe, just maybe, your self-righteous fill-in-the-nonexistent-blanks style of reading comprehension isn't fully justified?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-11-2013, 01:30 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 01:10 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I've challenged you and Cjlr on this 3 times, and your continued proves you're just making this stuff up and falsely attributing it, which just supports my assertion that you're so unwilling to open your mind that you not only will never accept the obvious flaws in issues like monetary policy, you cannot even bring yourself to accept that it was bad when Israel burned a bunch of civilians alive with chemical weapons. You're THAT closed-minded.

Citation needed, my good buddy.

Citation. Fucking. Needed.

(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I didn't explicitly say innocent people dying is bad because holy fuck why should I have to explicitly say that in order for your deranged mind to consider I actually think so?
(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Burning people is ... bad.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-11-2013, 03:07 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  This only applies to the first time Chas made the false claim, in post #10. However, we replied and included direct links and quotes proving that WP IS a chemical weapon.

Except you didn't.

Yes, we BOTH did multiple times. Post #12 (page 2) I include a direct quote from a US intelligence report, AND a statement from the Pentagon, AND a direct quote from the United Nations council, all confirming that when WP is used to harm humans, it IS a banned chemical weapon. IandI also submitted irrefutable proof. You and Chas just kept denying it, and now are denying that we even gave you direct links and quotes. What desperation!

(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If [WP] chemical toxicity is weaponized it is a chemical weapon. If it is used as an incendiary then it is not

Laughable backpeddling. We were ALWAYS talking about the incident in the Gaza War when Israel loaded it into bombs and burned alive civilian populations, and we both made it clear we WERE NOT ever referring to the use of WP as an incendiary. In response to this, you and Chas both insisted it was NOT a chemical weapon—even though we WERE always referring to weaponized WP.

(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Whether Chas WILLFULLY ignored the facts, or if his brain subconsciously blocked out the facts as a defense mechanism, that I obviously cannot tell. However, it is still generally considered lying even if it is due to such an underlying mental disorder.

Oh, we're accusing people of mental disorders, now?

Well, you tell me. In post #12 I DID provide several direct links and verbatim quotes proving this. You and Chas kept denying that using WP in this context (bombing civilian populations with it) was a banned “chemical weapon” according to the Geneva conventions. You both “sort of” acknowledged the other was wrong: you wrote of Chas “It's lying if you know it's wrong. Otherwise it's called just being wrong” and Chas wrote of you “I am not cjlr's keeper”. So, you tell me. Why did you both ignore the facts in my post #12 and keep saying that Israel's bombing of Palestinians with WP was not a banned use of chemical weapons? Was it WILLFUL? Was it just being stubborn? What was the reason?

(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Tungsten is an element Wink.
I invite you to provide a single reference wherein tungsten is classified as a chemical weapon.

Tungsten, while toxic, isn't particularly useful to kill people, so it's not used that way. IF somebody did weaponize tungsten and find a way to kill people using its toxic. So you're statement “It is not a chemical weapon. But it's toxic” is misleading. IF it were used as a weapon, killing people by reacting with other atoms in the body, it WOULD be a chemical weapon. There's nothing in the Geneva Conventions that says elements are exempt. And you need to go to back to grammar school if you think that chemistry is only combining non-elements. Look it up. It's the study of the interaction of atoms. Elements ARE made of atoms. So, if Tungsten were, somehow, inserted into cells and bound with carbon atoms in the cell to destroy it, YES, THAT IS CHEMISTRY and would be a chemical weapon.

(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The key line (which you alter so as to completely change the meaning) is this:
"through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals."

Do you know what that means? It means that use of a toxic substance does not qualify as a chemical weapon under the law of the Geneva Conventions.

False, if the toxic substance works through a chemical reaction, it IS a chemical weapon.

(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Is lead a chemical weapon? Lead is toxic. Lead is used in bullets. Are bullets chemical weapons?

While lead may be toxic, the killing action with a bullet is physical contact (the bullet penetrating the body). IF however lead was weaponized so that it was killing people through chemical reactions, as Israel did with WP, then YES it would be a chemical weapon. Israel did NOT kill Palestinians by using WP bullets or other means of physical destruction, the Palestinians were burned alive in a chemical reaction. YES, it WAS a chemical weapon.

(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It doesn't exist in this thread. It needn't even exist explicitly for it to be an accurate summation of his opinions.

Again, there's a huge difference between my approach, which is to take your verbatim quotes and copy/paste them, adding commentary, vs. your approach to “summarize someone's opinions”. You have a lot of nerve defending the latter, and then condemning me for the former saying that my added commentary is “putting words in your mouth”.

(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  If you saw someone beating a dog with a bat and commented how horrible it was, and I said “No law against it”, and you showed me the animal cruelty laws, but I just stubbornly kept saying “No law against it”, YES, that is tacitly defending the beating of the dog.

Uh... no. Not it isn't.

This is a subjective opinion. But I have a feeling that most pragmatic people would characterize it as defending the beating of the dog. IF I said “Yes, that's horrible, there should be a law against it”, then I'm not defending beating the dog. But if you keep showing me the dog being beaten and the laws against it, and I ignore everything you say, and in no way express disapproval, but instead keep saying “It's not against the law”, most rational people would consider that tacit approval.

(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 11:07 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The fact is that I and I, like the UN and all humanitarian organizations, condemned Israel's burning of Palestinians alive with chemical weapons. And you STILL refuse to accept the facts and keep defending this action. This thread is the substantiation.

Guy. That's not a citation. Let me know where I've apparently "defended" use of incendiary weapons against civilians. No, it's okay. I'll wait.

Reread this thread. This is the whole thing we've been debating for the past couple days. If you and Chas found this heinous, like IandI and myself, then what have we been arguing out? When IandI first brought it up you guys would have just said “Yeah, that's terrible”. But we've been fighting for 2 days because you can't bring yourself to concede that one of your beloved governments ever did anything bad.

(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you deny any of the delusional character assassination you've engaged in? Do you admit that maybe, just maybe, your self-righteous fill-in-the-nonexistent-blanks style of reading comprehension isn't fully justified?

Look, whenever we libertarians point out that your liberal monetary policy is CAUSING poverty and inequality, you always assassinate our character with the absurd statement that we're advocating poverty and inequality—when in fact we're arguing the opposite. As far as my character assassination of you, I admitted in the last post you likely are not in favor of burning people alive, and that the problem is just that you're so unwilling to accept that anything a communist or libertarian says is true that you'll dispute ANYTHING we say, even when it's something so obvious like “burning people alive is bad”. Thus my “character assassination” of you was accusing you of being closed-minded, stubborn and dogmatic—not of someone who enjoys seeing people burned alive. And, yes, I still feel that characterization of you is fully justified.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 04:25 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, we BOTH did multiple times. Post #12 (page 2) I include a direct quote from a US intelligence report, AND a statement from the Pentagon, AND a direct quote from the United Nations council, all confirming that when WP is used to harm humans, it IS a banned chemical weapon. IandI also submitted irrefutable proof. You and Chas just kept denying it, and now are denying that we even gave you direct links and quotes. What desperation!

Wow.

You're special.

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If [WP] chemical toxicity is weaponized it is a chemical weapon. If it is used as an incendiary then it is not.

Laughable backpeddling.

That's not backpedalling. It is in fact all I ever said. So there's that.

If you are still persisting in the fantasy that I said anything to the contrary, well; citation needed.

I mean, let's review what happened here. I made one post regarding what I thought was an uncharitable misrepresentation of something Chas said.

And then it was right back onto your trollercoaster, stream of self-absorbed invective and misrepresentational aspersions as robust and effluent as ever.

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  We were ALWAYS talking about the incident in the Gaza War when Israel loaded it into bombs and burned alive civilian populations, and we both made it clear we WERE NOT ever referring to the use of WP as an incendiary.

Oh. That must be why those things are mentioned in the OP, and -

Wait. They're not. Huh.

That must be why those are the things I mentioned in my original post, and -

Wait. They're not. Huh.

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  In response to this, you and Chas both insisted it was NOT a chemical weapon—even though we WERE always referring to weaponized WP.

A weaponized chemical is not necessarily a chemical weapon.

Phosphorus, when used to light people on fire (which, lest we forget, is bad Rolleyes ) is not a chemical weapon. That's literally the only contention I ever made in this thread, prior to getting sucked into defending myself from whatever shit you decide to hurl.

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  In post #12 I DID provide several direct links and verbatim quotes proving this.

I've already been over why the Geneva Conventions don't say what you seem to think they say.

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You and Chas kept denying that using WP in this context (bombing civilian populations with it) was a banned “chemical weapon” according to the Geneva conventions.

Except no, because that's not a thing that ever happened.

What's that old saying, again?

Oh, yes. Citation needed.

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You both “sort of” acknowledged the other was wrong: you wrote of Chas “It's lying if you know it's wrong. Otherwise it's called just being wrong” and Chas wrote of you “I am not cjlr's keeper”. So, you tell me. Why did you both ignore the facts in my post #12 and keep saying that Israel's bombing of Palestinians with WP was not a banned use of chemical weapons? Was it WILLFUL? Was it just being stubborn? What was the reason?

All Chas initially said was that white phosphorus is not by definition a chemical weapon. Its use is not, by definition, use of a chemical weapon.

Sane observers might note that his post to that effect was given before any specific incidents were mentioned.

Everything subsequent to that has spun off from your deranged mind.

Is it really that hard to keep track of?

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Tungsten, while toxic, isn't particularly useful to kill people, so it's not used that way. IF somebody did weaponize tungsten and find a way to kill people using its toxic. So you're statement “It is not a chemical weapon. But it's toxic” is misleading.

Oh, good, we're finally responding to something I actually said.

I guess it had to happen eventually!

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  IF it were used as a weapon, killing people by reacting with other atoms in the body, it WOULD be a chemical weapon. There's nothing in the Geneva Conventions that says elements are exempt.

Yes. It would be. I can only hope this means you've actually parsed the definitions successfully.

I note that you accept my statement that tungsten is not currently classified as a chemical weapon, despite being a toxic material which is used in weapons. A tungsten casing on a penetrative round is not a chemical weapon. Even though tungsten as a material is toxic.

Some A is B.
Some B are C.
Are all A, C?
Fun with syllogisms!

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And you need to go to back to grammar school if you think that chemistry is only combining non-elements. Look it up. It's the study of the interaction of atoms. Elements ARE made of atoms. So, if Tungsten were, somehow, inserted into cells and bound with carbon atoms in the cell to destroy it, YES, THAT IS CHEMISTRY and would be a chemical weapon.

Yep. And tungsten - which, I remind you, is weaponized - is not weaponized in such a way that its toxicity is the goal of its delivery. Therefore weapons made with tungsten are not necessarily chemical weapons. Therefore weapons made with phosphorus are not necessarily chemical weapons. Fun with syllogisms!

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  False, if the toxic substance works through a chemical reaction, it IS a chemical weapon.

You, uh... you might want to rethink that. Because that's not what the Geneva Conventions actually say.

I present for your consideration: gunpowder. Napalm. They're chemical reactions, all right, and they even involve toxic substances!

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Is lead a chemical weapon? Lead is toxic. Lead is used in bullets. Are bullets chemical weapons?

While lead may be toxic, the killing action with a bullet is physical contact (the bullet penetrating the body).

Hey, you do get it!

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  IF however lead was weaponized so that it was killing people through chemical reactions, as Israel did with WP, then YES it would be a chemical weapon.

Oh. I guess not quite.

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Israel did NOT kill Palestinians by using WP bullets or other means of physical destruction, the Palestinians were burned alive in a chemical reaction. YES, it WAS a chemical weapon.

No. Because fire is not a chemical weapon.

...

I didn't think this was complicated. Chemical weapons as defined by the Geneva Conventions (which, y'know, is nominally what the thread is about) are those and only those weapons which use chemical toxicity as their main vector.

Read the Protocols.

For serious.

Quote:1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

Note the keyword "chemical reaction".

Note how this is a different category from that of "chemical weapon".

Combustion is a chemical reaction. Its purpose in incendiary weapons (including white phosphorus munitions) is not to engender dispersal of chemically toxic substances.

This is literally the single point I made to begin with. And your hysterical raving response gave us another spin on the ol' trollercoaster. Which was my afternoon well spent, let me tell you.

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Again, there's a huge difference between my approach, which is to take your verbatim quotes and copy/paste them, adding commentary, vs. your approach to “summarize someone's opinions”. You have a lot of nerve defending the latter, and then condemning me for the former saying that my added commentary is “putting words in your mouth”.

Your approach is trolltacular fabrication.

You cannot provide a single instance of either Chas or I saying anything remotely like what you accuse.

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This is a subjective opinion.

Seems to me that would have been a lot simpler to find out these kinds of things before making farcically dishonest accusations. Here, like this:
"It sounds to me like you're defending X. Are you?"
And then you'd know!

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But I have a feeling that most pragmatic people would characterize it as defending the beating of the dog. IF I said “Yes, that's horrible, there should be a law against it”, then I'm not defending beating the dog. But if you keep showing me the dog being beaten and the laws against it, and I ignore everything you say, and in no way express disapproval, but instead keep saying “It's not against the law”, most rational people would consider that tacit approval.

That's nice.

If I were taller I'd need bigger pants.

This is the part where we make up irrelevant hypotheticals, right?

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Guy. That's not a citation. Let me know where I've apparently "defended" use of incendiary weapons against civilians. No, it's okay. I'll wait.

Reread this thread.

Oh my sweet spaghetti monster.

Do you even listen to yourself?

I asked you for a citation. It should be easy, if in fact I ever said any such thing.

A: You {B} said X!
B: No. Citation needed.
A: You totally said it!
B: ...

I mean, I'd hate to have to accuse you of "running from the question".

Dodgy

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This is the whole thing we've been debating for the past couple days. If you and Chas found this heinous, like IandI and myself, then what have we been arguing out? When IandI first brought it up you guys would have just said “Yeah, that's terrible”.

Hmm. I'm pretty sure I addressed that.
(18-11-2013 09:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I didn't explicitly say innocent people dying is bad because holy fuck why should I have to explicitly say that in order for your deranged mind to consider I actually think so?

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But we've been fighting for 2 days because you can't bring yourself to concede that one of your beloved governments ever did anything bad.

Well that doesn't follow.

I mean, I'm preeeeetty sure I said it was bad.

But I guess you know what I mean better than I do.

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Look, whenever we libertarians point out that your liberal monetary policy is CAUSING poverty and inequality, you always assassinate our character with the absurd statement that we're advocating poverty and inequality—when in fact we're arguing the opposite.

You seem to be confusing this conversation with some other one happening in a different part of your head.

Alternatively,
[Image: 34065324.jpg]

"Everyone who disagrees with me is obviously the same" is a line you've spouted before. It wasn't true then, and it's not true now.

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As far as my character assassination of you, I admitted in the last post you likely are not in favor of burning people alive, and that the problem is just that you're so unwilling to accept that anything a communist or libertarian says is true that you'll dispute ANYTHING we say, even when it's something so obvious like “burning people alive is bad”.

"Likely" are not. Oh, you. Never change.
(PS: that was sarcasm - you apparently can't tell)

But I'll tell you what I will dispute; the sort of mindset which says "anyone who doesn't begin by explicitly agreeing with me is defending the exact opposite thing". That's just tiresome (see also: dishonest, insane).

After all, let's see what you're saying here. That I (being here implicitly assigned to a specific ideological stance) will necessarily dispute anything said by someone of a contrary ideological stance. Because that's just the sort of swell guy I am. Okay, then.

Whatever hot air floats your blimp, chum. The better to look down on people from, I guess...

(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Thus my “character assassination” of you was accusing you of being closed-minded, stubborn and dogmatic—not of someone who enjoys seeing people burned alive. And, yes, I still feel that characterization of you is fully justified.

Yep. That's me. You sure figured me out.

And all you had to do was invent opinions from whole cloth, ascribe them to me based on no evidence, and decline to substantiate at any step of the way.

Making stuff up is the best way to characterise other people.
Thumbsup

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-11-2013, 05:37 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 04:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Combustion is a chemical reaction. Its purpose in incendiary weapons (including white phosphorus munitions) is not to engender dispersal of chemically toxic substances.

You STILL ARE defending the use of WP as a chemical weapon, because your new defense now is to say that Israel used WP as an 'incendiary' device, and NOT for its toxicity. Here was Israel's official report (which they've since removed) http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/E89E6...ration.pdf

Do they in there ever state that they used WP as an incendiary device? Do they ever defend their behavior by saying the intended goal was to make fire or burn stuff? NO, this is a defense that you are making up. You are falsely excusing Israel's behavior saying their goal was to make fire, and then defend it by saying “fire is not a chemical weapon.” You are making up defenses Israel themselves didn't make up.

Israel's only attempt at a defense was to say that they launched WP bombs to create a “smoke screen”—not to set anything on fire. However Human Rights Watch showed that the Israeli military had a non-lethal alternative at its disposal- smoke shells produced by Israel Military Industries. So, if their goal was ONLY to make a smoke screen and not to harm people with the chemical reaction, why didn't they use the non-lethal smokescreens that would do a better job? Why use WP instead? Few organizations bought Israel's defense that it was making a smoke screen.

You're going one step further now and making up your own defense for Israel, claiming they were using it as an incendiary device to make fire. Citation need. Otherwise just admit that you made that defense up, and that, yes, you ARE defending what Israel did.

(18-11-2013 04:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 03:07 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Again, there's a huge difference between my approach, which is to take your verbatim quotes and copy/paste them, adding commentary, vs. your approach to “summarize someone's opinions”. You have a lot of nerve defending the latter, and then condemning me for the former saying that my added commentary is “putting words in your mouth”.

Your approach is trolltacular fabrication. You cannot provide a single instance of either Chas or I saying anything remotely like what you accuse.

WTF??? You balk at me accusing you of “summarizing someone's opinions”. Your own words to describe what you did was: “summation of his opinions”. I'm “accusing” you of something you yourself said you did?! And then you say I cannot provide a single instance???? How many fucking times do I need to copy and paste the instance I included? If I do this 100 times will you eventually acknowledge it? You wrote: “I and I thinks Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately”. I have challenged you and Chas over and over and over again to copy/paste any actual, verbatim quote from IandI that says this. You just keep saying “Well he said it in another thread”, but you don't copy/paste anything. Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation needed. When did IandI say that? Citation needed.

See the difference between us is that I say “Citation needed” because you are NOT including ANY citation. You keep saying to me “Citation needed”, because you are ignoring the plethora of citations that I've provided.

Here, you challenged: “That's not a citation. Let me know where I've apparently 'defended' use of incendiary weapons against civilians.” And here's the citation I provided where you defended it: “Its purpose in incendiary weapons (including white phosphorus munitions) is not to engender dispersal of chemically toxic substances... fire isn't a chemical weapon.” IF Israel claimed it was using WP as an incendiary device to make fire, THEN your you could argue your statement is merely factual. But the fact that you're fabricating excuses that Israel didn't make, YES, you are defending it.


(18-11-2013 04:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  tungsten - which, I remind you, is weaponized - is not weaponized in such a way that its toxicity is the goal of its delivery. Therefore weapons made with tungstenare not necessarily chemical weapons. Therefore weapons made with phosphorus are not necessarily chemical weapons.

Yes, but as I've said so many times, Israel's only defense was that it used WP as a smoke screen, and Human Rights Watch refuted by that by showing they had another more effective smoke screen at their disposal, but CHOSE to use WP instead. It's never possible to prove someone's motives.

You keep insisting I don't understand the Geneva Conventions. But, on my side, those that condemned Israel's action as a violation of the Geneva Convention, include the UN, the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. On your side you have Chas. You don't even have Israel on your side since they never used the excuse that you made up for them.

The fact that the experts agree that Israel DID use WP bombs because of its “chemical toxicity”, and you keep arguing that they didn't and that “Chemical weapons... are only those weapons which use chemical toxicity as their main vector”, IS defending what Israel did. You refuse to accept that Israel likely did violate the Geneva Convention.

(18-11-2013 04:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Therefore weapons made with phosphorus are not necessarily chemical weapons [unless toxicity is the goal]

Look, I've never disputed this. And I've never said that I can know for certain what Israel's goal is. What I've said is that Israel's stated goal, a smokescreen, has been shot down by human rights organization, and that the UN and NGO's have concluded toxicity likely was the reason why Israel chose WP instead of non-lethan alternatives. You however seem to think that you know for absolutely certainty what Israel's goal was and that you know for certain their goal was not toxicity, and are even making up new goals that Israel didn't claim (incendiary device). Yes, you ARE defending them.

As you can see from my post, tons of citations. If you reply, please similarly include a citation to substantiate your claim that “I and I thinks Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately”.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 05:45 PM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2013 05:49 PM by Cardinal Smurf.)
Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
FWIW - I found what I read about Israel's use of WP airburst munitions in Palestine to be irresponsible and reprehensible. It seems to me irrelevant how said munitions are classified (chemical vs incendiary).

It should also be noted that I am not claiming to know what Israel's intentions were in using these munitions in this way. Intentional or not it's still irresponsible.

I'd like to know if anyone still in this thread can name an armed force in history who killed their enemies responsibly and without collateral damage. I can't think of any, but I'm no war historian.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cardinal Smurf's post
18-11-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 05:45 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I'd like to know if anyone still in this thread can name an armed force in history who killed their enemies responsibly and without collateral damage. I can't think of any, but I'm no war historian.

You are 100% right. Even _IF_ Israel did intentionally kill Palestinians with WP, I'm not even sure it's worse than what other countries have done. It was stupid for me to waste so many keystrokes and get derailed arguing with Chas and Cjlr over whether Israel used WP as a chemical weapon, because that's really not the point I was trying to make.

The real point is that I disagree with IandI and his "pro-Soviet-style-communism" as much as anybody else. BUT, I try to keep an open mind and when he makes a post that is so uncontroversial, such as condemning Israel's actions in the Gaza War, I will accept that he's making a good point. My horror with Cjlr and Chas's is that, imo, they're SOOO closed-minded, that even when IandI is simply condemning burning people alive, they STILL push back. They won't just say "Yeah, that was bad", but keep trying to make excuses and defend it. It just tells me that there is NOTHING at all I could ever say about monetary policy or other nuanced economic issues that will EVER make any dent. If we can't even reach consensus that it was terrible when Israel dropped WP bombs on the Palestinians, we have ZERO chance of reaching consensus on ANY political or economic issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: