1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

PeakOutput

concussion wrote: »

The UN wouldn't consider every male Palestinian over the age of 17 a terrorist and they're the ones releasing the casualty figures. It's worth noting that as militants are dressing in civilian clothing there's every chance the UN would classify them as civilians unless they were still armed when arriving at hospitals/morgues etc.

concussion got there before me its the un coming out with these figures after either observing themselves or speaking with palestinians in the areas / hospitals. you would think if anything they would be biased against israel

Nodin

munchester29 wrote: »

I have a source that says “Israel Furthers Plans to Annex East Jerusalem through Ongoing Settlement Expansion“, as in future plans. Haven’t done it yet though.

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article467

.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1980_1989/Basic%20Law-%20Jerusalem-%20Capital%20of%20Israel

munchester29 wrote: »

Not evasion – my point was that in recent years Israel didn’t kick Palestinians out of their homes in their thousands; Israel is not actively building new colonies in the west bank, etc. .

You ignore every indication given to you to the opposite.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=till_settlement_freezes_over

In 101 settlements construction took place. Over 500 buildings are currently being built in the settlements, in each of them several housing units (East Jerusalem excluded).
• Approx. 275 new buildings have started to be constructed. 20% of the construction is taking place in settlements east of the Separation Fence.
• In parallel, construction continued in all of the construction sites that already existed before Annapolis, included at least 220 buildings in 37 settlements.
• Mobile Structures (Caravans) - in some of the settlements, particularly east of the fence, new caravan neighborhoods have been established, using the "Lego System" so that construction is faster and cheaper, without a construction permits or approved planning. At least 184 new caravans were brought and installed in the settlements, some 150 of them (82%) in settlements located east of the fence such as, Eli, Dolev, Psagot, Ofra, Kochav Ha’shachar, Yitzhar, etc.
Approval of new construction plans – the Minister of Defense has approved several plans for construction. A total of (at least) 946 housing units
• A new city in the Territories – Modi’in Illit - At the beginning of March the Minister of the Interior approved the turning of the Modi’in Illit Local Council into a City.

http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&docid=3186&pos=1

munchester29 wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not..

No, it was.

munchester29 wrote: »

No, actually only pointing to one small fact in the report that might suggest it is not that accurate and just tells a one sided version of the story...

So Amnesty have a "bias". Why? Explain please......

TOMASJ

Well, here's where you're falling down - DU doesn't blow people to bits.

All it is is a large, very dense, bullet. It relies on kinetic energy, not explosives to destroy armoured vehicles. On passing through very hard substances (such as armour plating) the 'dust' can vaporise and combust around (and inside) the point of entry.

I wasn't aware Hamas were driving around Gaza in Armoured vehicles,
If they are how many of these Tanks have been destroyed by the IDF so far.

PeakOutput

Nodin wrote: »

So Amnesty have a "bias". Why? Explain please......

amnesty always have a bias come on now

Nodin

PeakOutput wrote: »

amnesty always have a bias come on now

What is it, and how does it come out in relation to the link I provided?

PeakOutput

Nodin wrote: »

What is it, and how does it come out in relation to the link I provided?

because they solely and unapologetically look at one aspect of a situation. the human tragedy aspect. thats there job thats fine but it also means that you cant judge your opinion of a huge political issue on just their reports because they dont care about politics or right or wrong they only care about helping the people caught in the middle. dont get me wrong this is a good thing but there is more to it than that

edit; that dosnt explain it very well actually but i hope you kind of understand it

concussion

TOMASJ wrote: »

I wasn't aware Hamas were driving around Gaza in Armoured vehicles,
If they are how many of these Tanks have been destroyed by the IDF so far.

Neither am I - what's your point? If whatever fired it hadn't been using DU they'd have been using explosive ammunition which would caused shrapnel over a much larger area.

Also, how did those medics know it was DU, you'd need a laboratory to confirm that. Also, the only reports of it that I can find are from Press TV, an Iranian station in Gaza.

PeakOutput

very interesting and almost balanced debate on rte radio one right now

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Pub bombings and London bombings, mortar attacks on Downing St. Brighton hotel bomb which almost wiped out the whole British Cabinet. Learn some history. Would Britain have been justified in levelling West Belfast in response to this terrorism?

Still a small fraction of what went on in the middle east

Matt Holck

PeakOutput wrote: »

i know it wasnt directed at me but the deaths of innocents are always tragic that dosnt mean that israel is wrong it just means that tradgedies happen in war

Does that mean that War is foolish?

munchester29

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1980_1989/Basic%20Law-%20Jerusalem-%20Capital%20of%20Israel ......

I know Israel has a claim on Jeruslaem. I was talking about east Jerusalem.

Nodin wrote: »

You ignore every indication given to you to the opposite.

No I wasn’t, I already discussed the expansion in existing settlements.

Nodin wrote: »

So Amnesty have a "bias". Why? Explain please......

Gladly.

For example:

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/scrutinize-amnesty-international/55021/

PeakOutput

Matt Holck wrote: »

Does that mean tat War is foolish?

in the world we live in today however distastefull and regretable it is, sometimes war is necessary

Matt Holck

PeakOutput wrote: »

in the world we live in today however distastefull and regretable it is to sometimes war is necessary

a fair answer to a sweeping generalization


I'm curious as to why Humas is in control of the palistines.

the following is OFF TOPIC
presented in only an attempt to humor heavy heads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq-SuSTVZVY

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

Still a small fraction of what went on in the middle east

If there was a Darwin Award for debating you'd win it. The principle is still the same.

youcrazyjesus!

concussion wrote: »

The UN wouldn't consider every male Palestinian over the age of 17 a terrorist and they're the ones releasing the casualty figures. It's worth noting that as militants are dressing in civilian clothing there's every chance the UN would classify them as civilians unless they were still armed when arriving at hospitals/morgues etc.

There we go, as predictable as a clock, somebody said you (as in YE) would say civilian deaths were in fact Hamas deaths. And it has come to pass.

concussion

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

There we go, as predictable as a clock, somebody said you (as in YE) would say civilian deaths were in fact Hamas deaths. And it has come to pass.

No...I said there's a chance the UN would classify HAMAS deaths as CIVILIAN deaths

Manic Moran

I don't know why the convention states air-delivery is excluded, if I was to give an opinion it would be because you can deliver a lot, lot more over a large area with less accuracy from aircraft than you could from artilery pieces.

I believe the prohibition has instances like Dresden or Tokyo in mind: Mass firebombing which basically causes a firestorm and great devastation. You can do it with airplanes pretty easily, artillery takes a lot of work.

In any case, you don't even need to look at the aerial/artillery distinction:

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

WP is primarily a smoke round.

Neither am I - what's your point? If whatever fired it hadn't been using DU they'd have been using explosive ammunition which would caused shrapnel over a much larger area.

Actually, it would be ammunition which is just as explosive, but uses a different metal. The munitions in question are likely DIME-type munitions, which use a heavy metal to reduce the danger radius from fragmentation. It would be just as effective to use any other heavy metal like tungsten to achieve the same effects, just DU is far more readily available. The practical dangers from DU munitions (Mainly heavy metal poisoning) would be just as high if other heavy metals were used, just the others don't have politically sensitive names.

Sand

There we go, as predictable as a clock, somebody said you (as in YE) would say civilian deaths were in fact Hamas deaths. And it has come to pass.

It is inescapable that when a force like Hamas uses the civillian population as a shield for its military activity, and works hard to hide amongst them that the terms civillian and Hamas fighters might be blurred.

Certainly, Hamas and their sympathisers would have a very strong interest in maximising civillian casualties - either by drawing IDF fire onto civillian areas or simply exaggerating numbers of casualties.

TOMASJ

You Said
Concussion

All it is is a large, very dense, bullet. It relies on kinetic energy, not explosives to destroy armoured vehicles. On passing through very hard substances (such as armour plating) the 'dust' can vaporise and combust around (and inside) the point of entry.

I asked

I wasn't aware Hamas were driving around Gaza in Armoured vehicles,
If they are how many of these Tanks have been destroyed by the IDF so far.,

Neither am I - what's your point? If whatever fired it hadn't been using DU they'd have been using explosive ammunition which would caused shrapnel over a much larger area.

So if these bombs are to destroy armoured vehicles and Hamas do not have any armoured vehicles why are the Israelis using these Bombs,

PeakOutput

TOMASJ wrote: »

why are the Israelis using these Bombs,

a weapon very rarely has one sole use. i imagine these rounds are quite efficient against concrete in otherwords the buildings in gaza

concussion

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, it would be ammunition which is just as explosive, but uses a different metal. The munitions in question are likely DIME-type munitions

Ah yes, I was thinking solely of the penetrators. Cheers.

TOMASJ wrote: »

You Said
Concussion
I asked
So if these bombs are to destroy armoured vehicles and Hamas do not have any armoured vehicles why are the Israelis using these Bombs,

The munitions I was thinking of were DU penetrators, not bombs. They're basically a long, thin rod of DU which punches through armour. They can be fired from helicopters, airplanes and tanks in various calibres.

Why they'd use them? They may simply be standard load for their Apache gunships. In this instance they do less damage to those around because they don't explode like cannon shells.

MM above talks about DIME weapons, the fragment would more likely have come from them as these weapons are designed to reduce the amount of damage around the target. Either way, there's no confirmation that they were used, and no laws or conventions against their use.

TOMASJ

PeakOutput wrote: »

a weapon very rarely has one sole use. i imagine these rounds are quite efficient against concrete in otherwords the buildings in gaza

You are the guy that seems to be the expert on these weapons,
You or Cuncussion said these bombs were for use against armoured vehicles.
Are you now saying depleted uranium bombs are for use in buildings as well as armoured vehicles, and do depleted uranium bombs no contain toxins that when inhaled can kill and destroy internal organs,
These could be referred to as a chemical weapon,

Matt Holck

Sand wrote: »

It is inescapable that when a force like Hamas uses the civillian population as a shield for its military activity, and works hard to hide amongst them that the terms civillian and Hamas fighters might be blurred.

Certainly, Hamas and their sympathisers would have a very strong interest in maximising civillian casualties - either by drawing IDF fire onto civillian areas or simply exaggerating numbers of casualties.

wow
that's so inhuman
could an electro-magnetic pulse be used to shut down these robots?

concussion

TOMASJ wrote: »

do depleted uranium bombs no contain toxins that when inhaled can kill and destroy internal organs,
These could be referred to as a chemical weapon,

No, DU bombs do not contain toxins which kill or destroy internal organs when inhaled. Referring to them as chemical weapons is like saying that suffering from lead poisoning after being shot is a form of chemical warfare.

WHO Report on DU

A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.

If there are contaminated areas you can just go and pick it up if wanted to.

Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

PeakOutput

TOMASJ wrote: »

You are the guy that seems to be the expert on these weapons,
You or Cuncussion said these bombs were for use against armoured vehicles.
Are you now saying depleted uranium bombs are for use in buildings as well as armoured vehicles, and do depleted uranium bombs no contain toxins that when inhaled can kill and destroy internal organs,
These could be referred to as a chemical weapon,

im no expert far from it i just see things in colour not black and white like you seem to

The Saint

munchester29 wrote: »

Three problems with this argument of yours:
1. “Jurisdiction is often a crucial question for the Court in contentious cases. The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent”

This means, for example, that if Israel hasn’t agreed for a case to be judged by the ICJ, the ICJ has no jurisdiction over Israel. The ICJ’s mandate is to resolve disputes when both parties agree to it.

The ICJ determines whether it has jurisdiction to hear a case or not. Not Israel. What you are talking about is contentious cases where both sides have to consent to the case being heard unless they have accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court then the court can hear a case without needing the parties to accept the jurisdiction of the court. So in advisory opinions the court doesn't need consent to make a ruling.

munchester29 wrote: »

2. You didn’t notice the words “Advisory Opinion” did you?

“In principle, the Court's advisory opinions are only consultative in character, though they are influential and widely respected.”

Key word: Consultative.[/QUOTE]
Advisory opinions are sought (usually by the General Assembly) to clarify the legal status of something. While decisions on advisory opinion are not legally binding they clarify the legal status of areas of contention. It is the highest judicial body in the world and it has stated that the settlements are illegal under international law. I assign this more meaning than what you say.

munchester29 wrote: »

3. The whole advisory opinion itself, by the way, was, and I quote:
“The case was viewed by many governments (including the United States and the European Union) as lacking standing, because the jurisdiction of the ICJ is limited to member states to the body, and the plaintiffs in the case lacked this designation”.

As I stated above, the court determines whether it has jurisdiction to hear a case. Not the EU, not the US and not Israel. Also for advisory opinions the court doesn't need to be given jurisdiction. I wouldn't take much heed of what the US says anyway since they have a less than impressive record of abiding by ICJ decisions. There also is no plaintiff in advisory opinions, only in contentious cases so what you're link says is incorrect. Can you provide me another source rather than Wikipedia as what it says is incorrect.

Also under the fourth Geneva Convention:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

dresden8

concussion wrote: »

The UN wouldn't consider every male Palestinian over the age of 17 a terrorist and they're the ones releasing the casualty figures. It's worth noting that as militants are dressing in civilian clothing there's every chance the UN would classify them as civilians unless they were still armed when arriving at hospitals/morgues etc.

So these smart bombs that kill women and children only kill males who are terrorists.

Maybe they should have written the software better to exclude women and children as well as civilian males.

concussion

dresden8 wrote: »

So these smart bombs that kill women and children only kill males who are terrorists.

Maybe they should have written the software better to exclude women and children as well as civilian males.

What are you wittering on about?

Nodin

munchester29 wrote: »

I know Israel has a claim on Jeruslaem. I was talking about east Jerusalem.

Are you being obtuse? Read it again.

munchester29 wrote: »

No I wasn’t, I already discussed the expansion in existing settlements..

Which are illegal....

munchester29 wrote: »

Gladly.

For example:..

That would be the same Alan Dershovitz who had Norman Finklesteins tenure vetoed because of his critical stance on Israel...Hmmmmm. A notorious pro-Israeli hawk (who ironically used German success with torture in France to justify Americas use of it, afaik) says amnesty is biased....

TOMASJ

concussion wrote: »

No, DU bombs do not contain toxins which kill or destroy internal organs when inhaled. Referring to them as chemical weapons is like saying that suffering from lead poisoning after being shot is a form of chemical warfare.

According to this site http://www.rense.com/general56/dep.htm and this http://www.countercurrents.org/hall230306.htm and any other site I Google these depleted uranium bombs do kill when their fumes are inhaled, and as such can be regarded as a chemical weapon.