In many countries, the concept of the hospital is also different from what it is in the US.
Where in the US there are clinics, ERs, urgent cares, and specialty practices, elsewhere there's just hospitals and you can go for any kind of treatment big or small.
Isreal bombards Gaza with missiles and chemical weapons, and continuously fires at Syria taking advantage of the "moderate rebels" it and its allies sponsor. Meanwhile, they continue to evict 60 year old men from their homes and arrest children. Not to mention Isreal has nuclear weapons but refuses to comply with any international treaties.
I'm sorry that I'm not going to respond to outright false claims, such that Israel used "chemical weapons" in Gaza, especially when you are at the same breath apparently defending Syria, which has been proved to use chemical weapons against civilians multiple times.
Under international law white phosphorous is considered an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon. There is a list of chemical weapons and white phosphorous is not on that list, although it is often incorrectly claimed to be so.
The Chemical Weapons Convention, sometimes invoked in discussions of WP usage, is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.). The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a substance "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals" (CWC, II). An annex lists chemicals that are restricted under the convention, and WP is not listed in the Schedules of chemical weapons or precursors.
The fact that an American intelligence analyst once during the Gulf War miscategorized WP as a "chemical weapon" when Saddam Hussein used it doesn't change its listing under international law.
Your 'key quote' misses the next section, which makes my case.
> No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application that does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
> If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.
> If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that, of course, is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.
~ Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Dropping white phosphorus during the daytime (when the illumination features of WP aren't needed) on a school in a dense urban environment is pretty clearly the case where it's considered to be a chemical weapon.
The annex lists chemicals understood to be chemical weapons under the convention, but it doesn't purport to be a complete list, only a set of some examples.
Er, but unless I missed something, Amnesty International didn't claim Israel used it for its toxic properties against humans or animals? They were against it being used for any purpose in Gaza, and chiefly cite it causing property damage. While that's still bad, it's not true that in that case WP counts as a banned chemical weapon. Ergo, the claim is false. White phosphorous is not a banned chemical weapon, and was not used for its chemical properties against humans or animals.
Also, even Amnesty International mentions that the purpose wasn't "illumination" — which would be ridiculous — the purpose was camouflage (which is apparently a typical use case).
The Amnesty International article is against any use in Gaza _because_ any use in a dense urban env is by definition an illegal use of chemical weapons.
Camouflage isn't a valid use of chemical weapons on a dense population when the arguments are taken as a whole. Even Mustard Gas works as a camouflage, it'd mean the whole convention is pretty much unenforceable.
Even the Amnesty International article doesn't call Israel's usage of WP as using a chemical weapon: they call it an incendiary weapon in the very first sentence (which goes along with the Wikipedia article I linked). The Mustard Gas comparison isn't valid; the whole point of mustard gas is to target humans. WP was being used as camouflage, and caused property damage. That can be bad! That can even be a war crime. But being bad or a war crime doesn't mean Israel used chemical weapons against people in Gaza. They used an incendiary weapon that caused a lot of property damage (which is possibly a war crime in its own right).
Edit: the entire Gaza War started with Hamas firing rockets packed with incendiary chemicals into dense Israeli urban environments. I would say many things about Hamas, but I would not say that Hamas has used banned chemical weapons against Israel. I suppose if you believe Hamas has used banned chemical weapons against Israelis, you may certainly believe Israel has done the same. But I think your definition of chemical weapons is significantly broader than international law. AFAIK neither side has done this.
The event they're talking about killed 2 and critically injured 14 more when WP was used over an in use UN run school. I'm not sure how you attached to the property damage component, but it's not a core piece of the argument being made by me or Amnesty International.
Edit in response to your edit: It's not the incindiary part of WP that's an issue, it's the chemical toxicity to humans and animals. Hamas has not used anything approaching chemical weapons by any definition against Israel, despite your attempt to deflect.
Hamas has not used anything approaching chemical weapons by any definition against Israel, despite your attempt to deflect.
Hamas rockets have in fact been filled with white phosphorus, literally exactly the same substance you're talking about, and fired at Israeli cities, intentionally, in attempts to kill Israeli civilians. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_o...
I assume you've been misinformed, or only presented with information from a specific side. But literally both Hamas and Israel have used white phosphorous. That's not a matter of debate, it's just a fact.
International law doesn't consider WP a chemical weapon, which is why no one claims Hamas has used chemical weapons against Israel. It's also why your claim that Israel used chemical weapons against Hamas is incorrect.
Ok, I was mistaken about that one piece. It doesn't help your case.
One of the citations from that line on the wiki page has
> Haim Yelin, head of the Eshkol Regional Council, added: "Everyone criticized Israel for the weapons it's been using, but we must realize that the other side is using illegal weapons."
So, yes, people including Israelis claim that the use of WP is a chemical weapon and illegal.
You get how taking unexploded munitions and sending them back over is a different thing than using them originally in the first place, no?
I searched the wiki page for that quote, since it doesn't mention chemical weapons, and it doesn't appear to exist on the page. Do you mind providing a reference? Weapons — and certain uses of weapons — can be "illegal" without being violations of chemical weapons bans.
I admit to being a bit suspicious that this quote claims anything about "chemical weapons." What the international community has criticized Hamas for, as per the wiki page, is indiscriminately firing rockets at civilian areas — which is illegal. They used white phosphorus in the rockets as well, but even prior to that, as per the wiki page they were filling rockets with TNT and explosive fertilizers, which use their chemical properties (of explosion) to kill people too. So if chemical properties of lighting on fire count as "chemical weapons" (they don't though), I think the chemical properties of TNT would suffice as well.
As per numerous [1] articles [2] and sources [3] the international community does not even consider Israel to have ever revealed owning chemical weapons (although it is suspected that they do); if white phosphorus was considered a chemical weapon, there would be no question: Israel has publicly used it, and publicly admitted to using and owning it [4]. Your claim is just incorrect.
Edit: even the Human Rights Watch article you linked disagrees with you! It criticizes Israel's use of white phosphorous because it violates international law on indiscriminate weapons use — the same laws Hamas broke with its rocket attacks — and specifically says that white phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon. Quote:
White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon and is not banned per se. But like all weapons its use is restricted by the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law: it must be used in a manner that adequately distinguishes between combatants and civilians, and it may never target the latter.
I think this is the end of the discussion. Even the sources you have tried to provide contradict your claim that Israel used "chemical weapons" on Gazans.
Literally nobody considers WP as a "chemical weapon" in the same sense as Sarin Gas was used by the Syrian regime against its own citizens over the past decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack
You and others are obsessively focused on any collateral damage caused by Israel which is trying to defend its citizens against deliberate rocket attacks launched by terrorists from civilian population. Meanwhile, you ignore far more egregious violations by the enemies of Israel, like Syria.
You use hyperbolic and unjustified language to condemn Israel for using weapons nobody considers "chemical weapons".
This is bias, pure and simple. Some of you have been brainwashed to obsessively hate Israel. Others were Antisemitic to begin with. Either way, you are now prejudiced.
> If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that, of course, is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.
~ Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Yes, people consider WP a chemical weapon. It's been cited several times from several different sources from authorities on the matter.
I also condemn in the strongest terms the US's use of WP in urban areas which I also consider a war crime (and several others do as well).
As far as Syria or any other, why do you think I accept their chemical weapon use? But just because someone else is using chemical weapons doesn't give Israel a pass.
Many anime studios in recent years have thrown in the towel despite having high levels of skill at their profession. It is repeatedly mentioned here that the reason animators are paid low is due to their abundance versus the demand, and that is certainly one reason of many. But another big reason is that it is strenuous work for which there really isn't that much pay out.
The NYTimes article flaunts a $24 billion market figure, but this figure would be the few big names (Naruto, One Piece, DBZ) and those series are making money off of physical product sales and licensing deals. The anime, at the end of the day, is not the product - it's just a commercial for the product. Every so often, studios experiment with original anime, sometimes sponsored by various other companies, but these rarely turn out to be financially fruitful and primarily end up again as advertisements or a test of some new technique or technology.
It really is. Like "haha, we just took over your country, destroyed your homes, killed your families, and called your land ours, gee those politics are ridiculous!"
Goes to show why the cop wouldnt like to be recorded. Ridiculous people who would freak out if a police officer bothered them for listening to music are now their own worst enemies.
But you dont have a right to everyone else's business. Police frequently deal with people in their worst, and yet some feel so entitled to seeing these situations they have nothing to do with as though it were just a drama on Netflix.
The mother of the affected was telling people to go away, but they were so desperate to push their own agenda they ignored it. The BWC videos are on YouTube.
I agree that this is a problem, and it could be solved by a legal requirement - spreading of the material is illegal if it is done for degrading the subject of police action, and "traffickers" (i.e. "laugh of the day" video aggregators) are held liable for redistributing such content.
Going against popular sentiment, I dont know how people can't get in touch with a human at Google.
Whenever I have needed something that required human support, such as resolving a false DMCA claim against my content or help with my G Suite account, I had no trouble getting email and phone support. I'm not a big company or influence of any kind either.
There's a better version of that in Ghost in the Shell SAC. You could have a cyber brain and connect to networks which could include websites, devices, other people, and even have a direct wired connection too.
Where in the US there are clinics, ERs, urgent cares, and specialty practices, elsewhere there's just hospitals and you can go for any kind of treatment big or small.