Talk:Allegations of chemical weapon use in the Sri Lankan civil war

(Untitled)

Phosphorous is not a CHEMICAL weapon per se, as it has no Physiological effects, only Physical effects, i.e. burns. However, as the article rightly states, its use has been pro-scribed by the international community due to the horrific nature of the injuries it causes. A little more re-writing is required to avoid deletion under WP:NPOV I feel.--Petebutt (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am planning to rewrite this article to address major NPOV and source issues. Of particular concern is the claim that the use of chemical weapons "has been confirmed by the United Nations and Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." The UN POE reference claims there are such allegations, not that the UN has confirmed them. I cannot find any evidence that the statement purportedly made by the OPCW actually came from them. It does not appear to be in the reference provided to their website (even in WaybackMachine snapshots) and neither does there appear to be any media coverage of such an explosive revelation by a respected organisation. In addition the poor grammar, careless conflation of thermobaric and chemical weapons etc leads me to believe this did not come from the OPCW. Unless anyone can provide a reliable source confirming that they did indeed issue such a statement I will be removing that section and all references to it. HereticsEnd (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are many things wrong with this article, it relies heavily on one event and is a WP:SYNTHESIS of pro LTTE website and articles that push the genocide agenda and anything that refers suggest chemicals weapons in Sri Lanka. These are hardly reliable sources for allegations of this kind or magnitude. A complete rewrite is necessary.--Blackknight12 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have made a first attempt at a rewrite, please critique and improve as needed (I've lost the password to the HereticsEnd account) PerditionsEnd (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Good work, I have cleaned it up a bit and removed the tag, but I think the content here would be better suited if it were merged into Alleged war crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. The timeframes and topics in question are the same and there is not much content nor is it a current issue to be a spin off.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

it appears the most strongly backed (by a journal paper) statement in the article has been removed and unsubstantiated claims of evidence have been inserted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.164.96 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed title & POV

I would like a response and some mediation here.

The user Lapmaster has been making a series of edits which appear to me to be pushing a certain POV. The previous title and introduction to the article referred to allegations of chemical weapons use and was backed by several sources:

1. ICRC and Indian medical teams who reported that they found no evidence of chemical attacks as alleged while treating the wounded

2. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses report which also stated ".. no strong evidence of the use of chemical weapons during the war has been found yet."

3. The POE report which also reported allegations of chemical weapons use. It did not categorise them under its "credible allegations" but presented them as "Other allegations" "about which it was unable to reach a conclusion regarding their credibility"

His justification for claiming there "there are evidences" seems to be the statement by a catholic bishop who claimed that civilians had reported that chemical weapons were used. His own Fox news citation on the other hand refers to allegations: "..probe Sri Lanka's alleged use of.. " "..called for an international war crimes investigation into the country's civil war including whether government forces used cluster munitions and chemical weapons.."

I will leave it to you to weigh the two sides.

He has also been making changes to the page title to apparently include and exclude content according to his whims. The original title was "Use of chemical weapons in the Sri Lankan civil war". First the well sourced 1990 LTTE chemical attack incident was removed, and the phrase "during the final phases" was added to the title, presumably to justify this removal. He then added references to "thermobaric and cluster munition weapons" to the title to roll together allegations regarding these into the same article. Now I see additions referring to white phosphorous, so presumably that will need to be added to the title too! As I understand this is an article on the alleged use of chemical weapons (which may be a notable topic, but less so as there is no evidence so far), and not one on "different kinds of weapons". PerditionsEnd (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Response

1. ICRC and Indian medical teams who reported that they found no evidence of chemical attacks as alleged while treating the wounded

Show me evidence ICRC has direct access to war-Zone; Sri Lankan Military might have screened the wounded and sent to ICRC medical team only those who have been not injured by chemical weapons.

ICRC never stated anywhere wounded not injured by thermobaric and cluster munitions which too banned or

Thermobaric weapons also lethal as Chemical weapons; see the effect below.

====Effect====

A Human Rights Watch report of 1 February 2000 quotes a study made by the US Defense Intelligence Agency:

The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique–and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.... If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.

According to a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency study, "the effect of an FAE explosion within confined spaces is immense. Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, and thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness." Another Defense Intelligence Agency document speculates that because the "shock and pressure waves cause minimal damage to brain tissue…it is possible that victims of FAEs are not rendered unconscious by the blast, but instead suffer for several seconds or minutes while they suffocate."

2. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses report which also stated ".. no strong evidence of the use of chemical weapons during the war has been found yet."

Show me the neutrality of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses when its President is the Defense Minister of India; India is widely accused of aiding Sri Lankan Government in the Sri Lankan Civil War in the later days after its bitter experience with the debacle of IPKF and the killing of Rajive Gandhi.

3. The POE report which also reported allegations of chemical weapons use. It did not categorise them under its "credible allegations" but presented them as "Other allegations" "about which it was unable to reach a conclusion regarding their credibility"

Sri Lankan Government never allowed POE to visit the War-Zone to confirm even their "Other allegations" into "Credible evidences".

Though the FOX News title used the term "alleged....." the content shows referral to evidences by various sources.Lapmaster (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So your entire response is that we can say there's evidence because through one conspiracy or another all the sources that reported there is no evidence are either lying, mislead or just haven't been able to come up with the evidence? I'm not sure if you're being serious here. All the reliable sources provided have either cited allegations or that there is no evidence. None have claimed there is evidence. That's not going to change no matter which way you try to flip it. By the way, thermobaric and cluster munitions are not "banned". The Convention on Cluster Munitions only came into force in 2010, and even then only binds the 92 states that have ratified it. There is no convention on Thermobaric weapons, which are also widely used. They have about as much relevance in an article on the alleged use of chemical weapons as general purpose bombs. PerditionsEnd (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Firm evidence

@Oz346 Can you please provide the "firm evidence" because you are making a exceptional claim which needs to back by exceptional sources and the only source you are providing is a shoddy Indian documentary and all other reliable sources and investigations found no evidence to prove it. -UtoD 04:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

the firm evidence is the documentary where the Sri Lankan soldier from the war museum admits it on camera in front of everyone to see (which has additionally been verified by NewsX and the articles by the late Prageeth Eknaligoda, who was murdered by the government for exposing it. Thankfully WP:NOTCENSORED unlike Sri Lanka.) Do you think the soldier is an actor? Shoddy is your opinion. And 'Indian', what are you trying to say? Refrain from making personal attacks to other nationalities. If you disagree we can take it to third opinion. Actually forget third opinion, you refuse to accept the outcome of that from past experience [1], when it supports addition of content that exposes the Sri Lankan Army for war crimes. A RFC is more appropriate. Oz346 (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

So all allegations? I fail to find the "verification" here, can you name the UN investigation that verified it with the specific report because you are making WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Calling unconfirmed allegations as "firm evidence" is opinion without the backing of exceptional sources. Also, the soldier from the war musueum is struggling to speak in Tamil which is clearly not his native language and was never considered as evidence by any legitimate organisation. All investigations have found no evidence for the claims. Multiple UN investigations exist about the last phase of the war so its a piece of cake to find actual firm evidence for you claims. Even in the article references to "chemical weapons" are incendiary weapons which are not considered chemical weapons legally as they kill by igniting the chemicals to burn. A random video of a soldier saying there "chemicals" in a bomb in a non-native language as "firm" evidence is not very encyclopedic. -UtoD 20:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)