ISIS using mustard gas against the Kurds; Would this be an Obama red line?

[k98nights]

ISIS using mustard gas against the Kurds; Would this be an Obama red line?

6 Comments
BY ANDREW MALCOLM
10:00 AM ET

 

U.S. officials and other allies confirmed Thursday the terrorist army of ISIS began using mustard gas this week in attacks against Kurdish fighters in Iraq.

The attack, first reported by German Defense Ministry officials, came Wednesday near Erbil in northern Iraq. The gas was likely delivered by rockets.

But the use of chemical agents elevates the capability of ISIS forces and creates new potential threats for forces combating ISIS without training in countering chemicals' use. It also creates a potential new issue for the American presidential competitions.

Hillarious Clinton, former secretary of State and now a Democrat candidate, once called chemical weapon use "a red line for the world."

Use of the sulfurous gas, which causes blindness, breathing difficulty and searing skin blisters, is not only a violation of international law, one of many things ISIS disdains. But it also crosses the controversial red line drawn by President Obama three years ago this month on the use of chemical weapons in the Mideast.

"We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that's a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly" about U.S. military involvement, the president said in a special news briefing.

In an April 2013 letter to senators, the White House appeared to expand the red line warning (our italics): "The president has made it clear that the use of chemical weapons — or transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups — is a red line for the United States of America."

In August 2013 Obama vowed punitive air strikes on Syria. But backed down in the face of congressional opposition and Russian President Putin's offer to broker a deal for Syria to allegedly turn over all of its chemical weapons. Obama proclaimed that process completed 14 months ago.

So, how and where did ISIS acquire the outlawed gas for use now? Perhaps capturing Syrian supplies not surrendered.

Obama, who's still on vacation, has been noticeably less outspoken since his red line debacle, emphasizing instead U.S. training of Kurdish, Iraqi and Syrian opposition troops. That hasn't gone too well, as we noted here. Weeks into an offensive to recapture Ramadi, Iraqi troops are struggling. But at least they're not fleeing this time.

Far more effective as fighters have been the Kurds. Despite longstanding and unfulfilled promises of lethal aid from the U.S., the determined soldiers remain under-armed. They're the same people who lost thousands in chemical weapon attacks by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 1988.



Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/081415-766590-isis-chemical-weapons-mustard-gas-against-kurds.htm#ixzz3inuQUaSN
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

[Texstorm]

Thanks K98! I Think it's time to pull off the gloves and enileate every last one of these animals! No more rules of engagements !

[vomer]

I'm sure that if Omoeba draws a 'red line' they will get scared and not move another inch (sarcasm).

[trvlr787]

Or we would hear "if you do it 3 more times you are in trouble"

[moose 57]

I agree with Texstorm- time to end it ...no mercy

[Officiallytook]

...this is going to take 2 weeks ... Roughly...to end this little problem.

[The Machine]

"Would this be an Obama red line?"  I'm pretty sure that's a red line for most world nations, its a violation of the Geneva protocol.

 

the Geneva protocol  prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare".

[Officiallytook]

So now the world's bombs dropping on em. Get it done boys

[Heavyduty053]

TIME TO ROUND THEM UP AND PUT THEM ALL IN A ROOM AND TURN ON THE GAS .....LETS SEE HOW MANY MAKE IT TO THEIR VIRGINS

[bostonangler]

The Machine.... We dropped white phosphorus bombs on Fallujah... The Geneva Protocol didn't seem to play a role... You have to ask yourself... WWJD???  Sorry, but I see so much hate in some these posts. You can't be a Christian when it is convenient.

 

 

B/A

[The Machine]

The Machine.... We dropped white phosphorus bombs on Fallujah... The Geneva Protocol didn't seem to play a role... You have to ask yourself... WWJD???  Sorry, but I see so much hate in some these posts. You can't be a Christian when it is convenient.

 

 

B/A

 

No treaty deals specifically with ‘white phosphorus', ‘white phosphorus weapons’, or ‘white phosphorus munitions’ as a means of warfare, but several treaties regulate munitions containing white phosphorus (WP).

Owing to the incendiary effects of WP, munitions containing WP can fall within the ambit of the 1980 Protocol on Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons). The Protocol defines incendiary weapons as

In keeping with this definition, any munition, including improvised devices, containing WP and that is ‘primarily designed’ to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons is covered by the Protocol’s provisions. Consequently, aerial delivery, in the conduct of hostilities, of incendiary weapons containing WP within a concentration of civilians is prohibited.

Excluded from the definition of an incendiary weapon under Protocol III, and, hence, from the scope of the Protocol, are munitions with ‘incidental incendiary effects’, and combined effects munitions ‘in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons’. The use of munitions containing WP that are primarily designed to illuminate or obscure rather than to harm through fire or heat are not regulated by the Protocol on the grounds that their incendiary effects are considered incidental .

It is not settled when the use of munitions containing WP in a particular instance is covered by the Protocol’s provisions, that is to say, when it should be considered use of an ‘incendiary weapon’. For instance, munitions containing WP may be described as illuminants or obscurants by producers or users are not regulated by the Protocol even if they foreseeably have significant incendiary effects and cause severe humanitarian harm in practice has in recent years led to renewed debate about the appropriateness of the Protocol’s scope.

It should be kept in mind that even when munitions containing WP fall meet the definition of an ‘incendiary weapon’ under Protocol III, their use is not prohibited by the Protocol. Protocol III only prohibits attacks on ‘any military objective located within a concentration of civilians by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects’. Consonant with general international humanitarian law (IHL), attacks on civilians or civilian objects with incendiary weapons are prohibited under the Protocol, as are attacks on forests or other kinds of plant cover by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used for military purposes or are themselves military objectives.

There is also potential for munitions containing WP to be considered chemical weapons, which are prohibited under the1992 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The Convention defines chemical weapons as:

(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;

(

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; (Art.II(1) in relevant parts)

Where ‘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. (Art. II(2))

And ‘Precursor’ means:

Any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. This includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system. (Art. II(3))

It is generally not disputed that WP itself is toxic, causes chemical burns and by absorption into the body can result in multiple organ failure and death. Due to this, WP is generally considered a toxic chemical (and/or a precursor of toxic chemicals produced through chemical reaction of WP with water or oxygen). Disagreement relates mostly to the question whether a particular use of a WP munition should be considered use of a chemical weapon.

With respect to Art. II(1)( cited above, WP munitions are not ‘specifically designed’ to cause death or other harm through thetoxic properties of WP, and they are therefore not captured by that provision. The debate turns around whether WP munitions should be considered chemical weapons on the basis of Art. II(1)(a), or whether, in contrast, the use of WP is ‘intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention’, namely,

Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare

Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes

In relation to the purposes referred to in Art. II(9)©, the majority view holds that when WP munitions are used for military purposes such as screening or illuminating, they are not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of WP, and are, hence, not to be considered chemical weapons. The claim that toxic properties are in fact relied upon has in particular arisen in connection with so-called ‘shake-and-bake’ missions and other anti-personnel use of WP munitions.

Pursuant to Article II(9)(d), use of toxic chemicals for law enforcement, including domestic riot control, is not prohibited under the Convention. However, it is prohibited under the Convention to ‘use riot control agents as a method of warfare’. The CWC defines ‘Riot Control Agent’ as:

Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.

In the view of some, smoke produced by WP munitions would be captured by this definition. In particular use of WP munitions in so-called ‘shake-and-bake’ missions to ‘flush out’ enemy combatants from their hiding places and attack them with explosive weapons, WP smoke is used as an irritant against enemy combatants, and thus constitutes use of a riot control agent as a method of warfare.

Weapons containing WP can also qualify as ‘incendiary weapon or device’ under the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. The Convention applies to any ‘explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage’; or a weapon that has these effects through toxic chemicals, biological agents, toxins, or radiation.

Under the Convention it is an offence for any person to deliver or detonate an ‘incendiary weapon or device’ ‘into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility’ with intent to cause death, serious bodily injury, or extensive destruction. Note, however, that the Convention does not cover the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict which are governed by IHL.

[Zebra0101]

obama doesn't have a "red line'" it may be pink from him scooting his rear-end on the sand while not wearing his feminine monthly cycle protection...

[gymrat76541]

Obama will not act!

 

He is waiting until after the 2016 elections to allow the new President to handle his mess!

 

Chemical weapons, mass murders, raping and pillaging town after town does not matter! The average American can care less about a country on the other side of the planet.

[67brand]

I really don't believe it would be a Red line for him if it happened here in the U.S. There's no Red line for him period. It's his people.

[WheresmyRV?]

Obama could care less, its going to be a long year and a half before he is out of office.

[chess]

Our esteemed POS prez should think (maybe) about giving ISIS a stern talking to....."yeah, that's the ticket"

 

......whata supreme do-nothing rat-bastard!!!!.....................................

Edited August 14, 2015 by chess

[MyLadiesDaddy]

The Machine.... We dropped white phosphorus bombs on Fallujah... The Geneva Protocol didn't seem to play a role... You have to ask yourself... WWJD???  Sorry, but I see so much hate in some these posts. You can't be a Christian when it is convenient.

 

 

B/A

No man knows another mans heart. And I'm here to tell you from

personal experience you'd be shocked at what a born again Christian

can do. Problem is, once you do it you have to deal with God.

Eventually you figure out that it's just easier to obey.

[Kraidle]

I WISH we would go back there. I'll happily answer for any animals I have to put down there.

...but we won't. Not one of our leaders wants to head back and finish the job.

[boosterbglee]

O's gonna count to three.....one....two.....two 1/2....two 3/4.......Good grief lets finish these 3rd world savages off!

[Rasica]

The crisis in Iraq and the centrality of Israel’s national interest.

Zionist war criminal Avi Dichter, the former Israeli Minister of Internal Security, former head of Shin Bet (Shabak) from 2000-2005, and current member of the Knesset, issued an ominous speech to the Israeli National Security Research Center on May 26, 2010. Dichter told the audience:

Shin Bet aka; ISIS head 

Avi Dichter

 admitted to the destruction

of Iraq at the hands of Tel Aviv.

“We have achieved in Iraq more than we expected and planned. Iraq has vanished as a military force and as a unified country. 

Our strategic option is to keep it divided

. Our strategic goal is to not allow Iraq to take its regional and Arabic role back. Iraq must stay divided and isolated from its regional environment. Nobody can ignore what we have achieved in this field. Iraq can never be the same Iraq before 2003.”

Not only has Tel Aviv repeatedly admitted that it has benefitted greatly from the destruction of Iraq, it has openly admitted to being the cause of its destruction, though Zionist-owned mainstream media and alternative news networks have both downplayed it.

Dichter

 would say throughout his speech that Iraqi oil from Kirkuk, controlled by Kurdish collaborators, would flow into occupied Palestine into the hands of the Zionists. He would also boastfully say that Israel is still active in Iraq and Zionist operatives move in the shadows to secure political and economic benefits from the puppet regime; not only from the Kurdish collaborators who have been consistently supported by Mossad since the end of the 1950s, but also from traitorous elites in Baghdad.

As evidenced by the recent developments in Iraq since the new year began, Israel is still active in occupied Iraq indeed.

• THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBAMA AND ISIS: THE EVIDENCE!
• C-SPAN 1990 ISRAEL’S INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY: THE AMAN, THE SHIN BET, & MOSSAD THE ISRAELI SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE AKA; ISIS.

[Roadrunner]

Send in PMCs and remove the rules of engagement. We would be rid of them in a matter of weeks. Operators can do what soldiers aren't allowed to do.

 

Roadrunner

[uncirculd]

The Machine.... We dropped white phosphorus bombs on Fallujah... The Geneva Protocol didn't seem to play a role... You have to ask yourself... WWJD???  Sorry, but I see so much hate in some these posts. You can't be a Christian when it is convenient.

 

 

B/A

Luke 22:36 - Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Proverbs 25:26 - A righteous man falling down before the wicked [is as] a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.

 

1 Timothy 5:8 - But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Matthew 10:34 - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Edited August 15, 2015 by uncirculd

[sandfly]

GOOD ONE Z

[brokerkeith]

Yes, and make that a "red crayon" so he can draw that "red line" to complete his connect the dot puzzle....