1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

concussion

TOMASJ wrote: »

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.

Did you even read the WHO report?? I'll take my information from a known organisation instead of those that you offered.
From the countercurrents link

D.U. is "depleted" only in the sense that more highly radioactive forms of uranium have been partially removed. What's left, depleted uranium, mainly U-238, is still highly radioactive and dangerous.

Naturally occurring uranium contains U235 and U238 - DU is uranium with U235 removed. This leaves it 0.7 times as radioactive as the naturally occurring uranium which is all around you in the ground. You inhale and ingest trace amounts of it every day.
As for its radioactivity, it is primarily an alpha emitter. Alpha particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper and definately cannot pass through the skin. You can hold it in your hand, as the WHO report states, you could lick it if you liked.

From the International Atomic Energy Agency

Regarding exposures to DU, there have been studies of the health of military personnel who saw action in the Gulf War (1990-1991) and during the Balkan conflicts (1994-99). A small number of Gulf war veterans have inoperable fragments of DU embedded in their bodies. They have been the subject of intense study and the results have been published. These veterans show elevated excretion levels of DU in urine but, so far, there have been no observable health effects due to DU in this group. There have also been epidemiological studies of the health of military personnel who saw action in conflicts where DU was used, comparing them with the health of personnel who were not in the war zones. The results of these studies have been published and the main conclusion is that the war veterans do show a small (i.e., not statistically significant) increase in mortality rates, but this excess is due to accidents rather than disease. This cannot be linked to any exposures to DU.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/du_qaa.shtml


As for it being a chemical weapon - the US has signed Geneva protocols forswearing first use of chemical weapons but reserving the right to use them if attacked first with chemical weapons. Seeing as the US has been using DU for years without a peep from the UN or the international community about chemical warfare, you can be assured thet DU is not a chemical weapon.

EDIT - It would be pretty useless as a chemical weapon anyway. If it did cause cancer years after exposure what good is that. Expose the country to DU, wait ten years for some of them to get cancer? There are much much much more effective ways of killing people.

TOMASJ

concussion wrote: »

Did you even read the WHO report?? I'll take my information from a known organisation instead of those that you offered.
From the countercurrents link

Just after reading the site you linked, (the following is from that site)
(The main potential hazard associated with depleted uranium ammunitions is the inhalation of the aerosols created when DU ammunitions hit an armoured target)
even they admit it is a dangerous when used as a bomb,

Maybe its only safe when used by the Israeli Army?

Matt Holck

I heard the depleted uranium is deadly when it passes through peoples skulls

de da dead

youcrazyjesus!

The point of DU isn that its being used AS a chemical weapon. Its that it causes cancer. Nobody saying the objective is cancer
They're saying its a side effect which is ignored.

concussion wrote: »

Did you even read the WHO report?? I'll take my information from a known organisation instead of those that you offered.
From the countercurrents link


Naturally occurring uranium contains U235 and U238 - DU is uranium with U235 removed. This leaves it 0.7 times as radioactive as the naturally occurring uranium which is all around you in the ground. You inhale and ingest trace amounts of it every day.
As for its radioactivity, it is primarily an alpha emitter. Alpha particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper and definately cannot pass through the skin. You can hold it in your hand, as the WHO report states, you could lick it if you liked.

From the International Atomic Energy Agency

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/du_qaa.shtml


As for it being a chemical weapon - the US has signed Geneva protocols forswearing first use of chemical weapons but reserving the right to use them if attacked first with chemical weapons. Seeing as the US has been using DU for years without a peep from the UN or the international community about chemical warfare, you can be assured thet DU is not a chemical weapon.

EDIT - It would be pretty useless as a chemical weapon anyway. If it did cause cancer years after exposure what good is that. Expose the country to DU, wait ten years for some of them to get cancer? There are much much much more effective ways of killing people.

youcrazyjesus!

The absurdity of this debate is unreal. We re arguing over whether fighters are Hamas or civilians or what percentage of
Casualties are children, whether White phosphorous is dangerous or legal or whether DU is harmful. Whether F16s were
dropping leaflets or bombs, whether shells which indisputably killed civilians were fired at them or not.

Somebody claims settlement activity had halted, when proved wrong on all counts by facts, from the Israeli govt he moves
the goalposts so about 25 times, they're now at the sideline.

Would we ask the same questions of any other invading army going against a tiny, defenceless enemy? No.

Of Iraq against Kuwait? No, we'd say it didn't matter and we'd we right.

The flimsiness of some peoples defences of Israel and the lenghts to which they'll to to not concede any point
no matter how small is incredible. Shame on you for being so foolish.

GuanYin

Some Moderator Notes - READ

OK, this thread is going around in circles and until this post, I've let alot slide.

I'm going to makes some points about what is and is not ok here, because some of you are having difficulty. Ignoring the following points will get you infracted, it may even get you banned.

1. Personal remarks. Don't comment on what type of person a poster is. It isn't for you to judge.

2. Moderating. We'll judge if someone is a troll or if someone is breaking rules. If you have a problem, report the post.

3. Fog of war. This isn't ok. If you try and drag this off topic or ignore the points being made with semantics or pedantry, we will spot this and we will act. I've noticed it in this thread. From here on in, I'll be stamping down.

4. Off topic posts. Posting unrelated articles or propaganda will most likely get you banned from this forum straight off. If you're going to post an article or a link to an article, I want your opinion on it or an explanation on why it relates to the ongoing discussion.

========

As a separate but equally noteworthy point, I'm taking a dim view of some posters ignoring points and links when it suits them.

If you are here to debate a point then do it in a grown up manner. Comments like

"the burden of proof is on you"

Will not wash here, if the other poster has provided links to support their point.

If a poster is going to refuse to engage in a mature and equal manner, then I'm just going to remove them from the discussion and the forum, because all they are doing is creating clutter with their opinions and no facts to back them up.


This post is purely for information purposes. Do not reply, do not quote and do not debate it. Anyone doing so will find their posts deleted and may be further sanctions. For debate on moderation, please post in the correct thread.

youcrazyjesus!

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.

I don't mean to be labouring this, but nobody has provided any source for this particular claim despite being asked several times. I have yet to read a report of such cases
in mainstream media and ive been following this closely.

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

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

rockets which have killed 20 in 8 years is less terrorism than IRA pub bombings, downing st
mortar attack and coming within a **** hair of wiping out the whole British cabinet?

Ping Chow Chi

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I don't mean to be labouring this, but nobody has provided any source for this particular claim despite being asked several times. I have yet to read a report of such cases
in mainstream media and ive been following this closely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7818122.stm

It looks like both sides use civilian sheilds, nice bunch of people, I would hate to be caught in the middle of them. I really think that the IDF are just as bad as hamas, they just have a larger set of 'toys' to play with.

Macha

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7818122.stm

It looks like both sides use civilian sheilds, nice bunch of people, I would hate to be caught in the middle of them. I really think that the IDF are just as bad as hamas, they just have a larger set of 'toys' to play with.

I think that another important distinction between the two is that the Israel has more options. They hold the balance of power.

Also, Israel uses Palestinians as human shields but I don't think they have ever used Israelis as human shields (could be corrected on that..)

Nodin

taconnol wrote: »

Also, Israel uses Palestinians as human shields but I don't think they have ever used Israelis as human shields (could be corrected on that..)

No, though the excuse for putting settlements in the OT is sometimes given as they'd be acting as a 'buffer'. Seeing as theres civillians in those, I likened it to strapping your granny to a car as a bumper.

Meanwhile......

Israel has confirmed that reserve units have been sent to the Gaza Strip, as its campaign there enters a 17th day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7823361.stm

...hard to know whether this is penis wielding or they intend to go house to house now. Hopefully the former, but we should see within the next 48 hours presumably.....

SectionF

It's no laughing matter, but if it takes humour to expose the US media's cringeworthy pro-massacre bias, then so be it.

Here's John Stewart on Gaza

concussion

TOMASJ wrote: »

Just after reading the site you linked, (the following is from that site)
(The main potential hazard associated with depleted uranium ammunitions is the inhalation of the aerosols created when DU ammunitions hit an armoured target)
even they admit it is a dangerous when used as a bomb,

Maybe its only safe when used by the Israeli Army?

Indeed, and the part you yourself highlighted says "when DU ammunitions hit an armoured target". As we all know, Hamas does not
have any armoured vehicles. The reason it is "potentially" dangerous is that you could inhale DU dust which is possibly carcinogenic when the DU encounters extremely hard armour. In impact, some of the DU is converted into small particles so if you're
A - standing beside an armoured vehicle and
B - still alive after its been hit, and most likely exploded due to its own ammunition cooking off,

or
C - climb inside an old armoured vehicle and start sniffing all the dust inside

then you may inhale some DU which may or may not cause cancer.

If it doesn't hit armour it will just embed itself in the ground or a wall or whatever it hits as a solid lump which has negligable effect on the environment and can be disposed of easily.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

The point of DU isn that its being used AS a chemical weapon. Its that it causes cancer. Nobody saying the objective is cancer
They're saying its a side effect which is ignored.

People are claiming it is a chemical weapon - people are also claiming, that it is being used by Israel in Gaza (not yet proven yet anyway). By that logic, Israel is conducting chemical warfare.

They are incorrect, as DU is not a chemical weapon.

SectionF

Israel is committing a war crime, according to leading human rights lawyers writing to the Sunday Times yest.

The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence. Under international law self-defence is an act of last resort and is subject to the customary rules of proportionality and necessity.

The killing of almost 800 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 3,000 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire.

For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade on the coastal strip that brought Gazan society to the brink of collapse. In the three years after Israel’s redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. And yet in 2005-8, according to the UN, the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. Throughout this time the Gaza Strip remained occupied territory under international law because Israel maintained effective control over it.

(My itals)

youcrazyjesus!

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7818122.stm

It looks like both sides use civilian sheilds, nice bunch of people, I would hate to be caught in the middle of them. I really think that the IDF are just as bad as hamas, they just have a larger set of 'toys' to play with.

Fair enough. It says both sides are using human shields. A source at last.

jank

Excellant time article here that everyone should read.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870314,00.html

Basicly taking a few steps back from this recent skirmish what will it achieve in the long run for Israel. Nothing. Israel cannot win a this war or any war in the future.
Demographs over the course of a few decades will ensure that if Israel remain a jewish state that it must enter into a 2 state settlement with palistine. Otherwise its just a 21st centuary South Africa. Also dont take the eye off Iran, the real enemy of Israel.

Mr.Micro

jank wrote: »

Excellant time article here that everyone should read.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870314,00.html

Basicly taking a few steps back from this recent skirmish what will it achieve in the long run for Israel. Nothing. Israel cannot win a this war or any war in the future.
Demographs over the course of a few decades will ensure that if Israel remain a jewish state that it must enter into a 2 state settlement with palistine. Otherwise its just a 21st centuary South Africa. Also dont take the eye off Iran, the real enemy of Israel.

I agree its just another bloody footnote. Iraq was taken out because it was a threat to Israel and Iran would have been next if Iraq and Afghanistan have not proved so difficult. Nothing will really change in the dynamic and Israel will continue to exist under the threat of terrorism despite its military might.

youcrazyjesus!

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I agree its just another bloody footnote. Iraq was taken out because it was a threat to Israel and Iran would have been next if Iraq and Afghanistan have not proved so difficult. Nothing will really change in the dynamic and Israel will continue to exist under the threat of terrorism despite its military might.

By 2003 Iraq wasn't a threat to anybody, not even Kuwait believed that, it was never a threat to Israel.

Mr.Micro

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

By 2003 Iraq wasn't a threat to anybody, not even Kuwait believed that, it was never a threat to Israel.

I do'nt disagree with you, but in the long term it was perceived as a threat in that it would have been more likely to gain supremacy ahead of Iran over Israel in the middle east, despite it enduring economic sanctions. In reality there was to be only one military power left, ie Israel?

youcrazyjesus!

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I do'nt disagree with you, but in the long term it was perceived as a threat in that it would have been more likely to gain supremacy over Israel in the middle east.

Yeah, Saddam would have provided an example to other upstart Arabs on how to be independent and not take orders from outside while running a tight ship economically, back in the 80s Iraq had close to 1st world standard healthcare and education according to the UN, this would have provided a political focal point for others looking to stir up trouble. So I agree but think it was much more a political threat than military.

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

The point of DU isn that its being used AS a chemical weapon. Its that it causes cancer. Nobody saying the objective is cancer
They're saying its a side effect which is ignored.

Cell phones probably have the same side effect.

jank

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I agree its just another bloody footnote. Iraq was taken out because it was a threat to Israel and Iran would have been next if Iraq and Afghanistan have not proved so difficult. Nothing will really change in the dynamic and Israel will continue to exist under the threat of terrorism despite its military might.

Did you even read the article? Israel as a state right now cannot exist in its current format in the future. Hamas and fatah know this.
Where is the end game. Does Israel want an endgame?

The recent attacks against Hamas is just show boating to Iran that its still "lean and mean". Playground posturing. Egypt, Jordan and co, arent happy with Iran either but only the US can really deal with them and bring them to the table rather then exclude them.

It is time for some people to take a step back and think on whats going on rather then make fashionable judgements from the get go.

For example if Hamas is destroyed who will take their place? Hamas II more then likely. Look at the big picture.

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I don't mean to be labouring this, but nobody has provided any source for this particular claim despite being asked several times. I have yet to read a report of such cases
in mainstream media and ive been following this closely.

The IDF has released videos of a booby trapped school and a zoo.

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

rockets which have killed 20 in 8 years is less terrorism than IRA pub bombings, downing st
mortar attack and coming within a **** hair of wiping out the whole British cabinet?

Your figures a bit incorrect. Rockets are not the only means by which Palestinians have been attackign Israel.

Since 2000, there were over 1000 killed Israelis and many others wounded in terror attacks.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html

Besides, the number of casualties is not the only parameter. The number of attacks is also a parameter, and including rocket firing, there were tens of thousands of those against Israel.

munchester29

SectionF wrote: »

Israel is committing a war crime, according to leading human rights lawyers writing to the Sunday Times yest.



(My itals)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and some of them even write them to the letters section in newspapers. Doesn't prove anything though.

sHnaCk

See the attachment... kinda sums it up

concussion

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

The absurdity of this debate is unreal. We re arguing over whether fighters are Hamas or civilians or what percentage of
Casualties are children, whether White phosphorous is dangerous or legal or whether DU is harmful. Whether F16s were
dropping leaflets or bombs, whether shells which indisputably killed civilians were fired at them or not.

It's not that absurd when it comes to dealing with things on a legal basis, which this may come down to if there the international community really push it. To address your points above:

Killing a soldier, militant or a civilian who takes arms to defend themselves is legal. Deliberately killing an unarmed civilian is not. If unarmed civilians are killed during hostilities accidentally due to their proximity to armed parties its an unfortunate and tragic consequence of war. Those are the realities. When civilians are killed, the reason why they died should be explored fully and that's whats happening on this forum -were Hamas firing from inside or near a school, etc. Questioning the events do not mean the person is condoning the act.

White phosphorus - yes it's dangerous. Is it legal to use in the way the Israeli's have used it - also yes. Is it therefore a criminal act - no.

Regarding the F16, you asked what else would it be doing but dropping bombs. I simply told you it could also drop leaflets. Incidentally, they can also carry reconnaissance pods. As I said, more than likely it was dropping bombs.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could only be equated to the Israli actions of the last few weeks if -
Kuwaits democratically elected government was a terrorist organisation
Kuwait posed a security problem to Iraq
Iraqs neighbours supported Kuwaits fight against Iraq
All of Iraqs neighbours had invaded and almost eradicated Iraq in major wars during the last 60 years.

None of these are true, so they're not comparable

SectionF wrote: »

Israel is committing a war crime, according to leading human rights lawyers writing to the Sunday Times yest.

All those buildings which are protected by the convention lose their protected status if they are used for military use, ie storing weapons in mosqes etc.

Lemming

sHnaCk wrote: »

See the attachment... kinda sums it up

You forgot the second Palestinian pram that the IDF is crouching behind (if news reports & video footage of IDF human shields in recent days is anythign to go by) ...

In short, both sides are equally contemptable.

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

Your figures a bit incorrect. Rockets are not the only means by which Palestinians have been attackign Israel.

Since 2000, there were over 1000 killed Israelis and many others wounded in terror attacks.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html

Besides, the number of casualties is not the only parameter. The number of attacks is also a parameter, and including rocket firing, there were tens of thousands of those against Israel.

Another one of your evasion tactics when found out. Hamas has stopped suicide bombings in the last 3 years. The original point was about wheter ROCKET ATTACKS which have killed people RECENTLY were enough justification for attacking Gaza like this. I pointed out that the IRA caused far more damage on the UK mainland on several different occasions than rocket attacks have done recently and asked you if the UK would have been justified in levelling West Belfast?

So, understanding that we are talking about rocket attacks in recent years, next to IRA pub bombings and almost wiping out the British Cabinet, would the British have been justified in levelling West Belfast in response to this terrorism, or not?

sHnaCk

Isa 41:11-13 "Behold, all those who were incensed against you shall be ashamed and disgraced; they shall be as nothing, and those who strive with you shall perish. You shall seek them and not find them-- those who contended with you. Those who war against you shall be as nothing, as a nonexistent thing.
For I, the LORD your God, will hold your right hand, saying to you, 'Fear not, I will help you.'[/B]