1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Macha

munchester29 wrote: »

As for WP – still no proof that Israel used these in an unlawful manner.

Unlawful according to which laws? Israel's?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/israel-gaza-phosphorus-civilians

Sorry but this is totally unacceptable. No statement from an IDF spokesperson can excuse it. It is no good to say they "intended" to use it for illumination or smokescreen but "unintentionally" hit civilians. It's just not good enough. It leaves it far, far too open for total abuse.

munchester29 wrote: »

As for the rest – under certain circumstances, yes, it is acceptable.
These circumstances being – continuous terrorist attacks on a sovereign nation.

Can you not see the futility of this logic? Hamas can use the exact same logic to justify its own attacks.

munchester29 wrote: »

Israel has left Gaza, but is being attacked from there. Israel has no choice

You're conveniently omitting an important fact: the blockade of Gaza. Israel may have left Gaza but still control all sea, land and air borders. Israel does have a choice - to remove the blockade but they chose not to.

munchester29 wrote: »

it has a commitment to protect Israeli citizens, not a commitment to protect Palestinians.

Actually, I think you'll find that under the Geneva Convetion, Israel does have obligations for protecting civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinian in times of war.

munchester29 wrote: »

The Palestinains should be protected by their own government – Hamas.
The only problem is Hamas only score points when civilians die.
Maybe its time to condemn the terrorist organization, not the democratic country fighting them?

Yes, the Palestinians should be protected by Hamas and yes, Hamas should be condemned for their part. But again a few points:
-like it or not, Hamas was democratically elected - convenient omission on your part again.
-another omission: Israel has banned arab parties from government. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
-how exactly can Hamas best protect their people? By capitulating? By just allowing the previous status-quo of the Gazan blockade to continue?

Why should Israel be absolved? They are using anti-personnel weapons and bombarding a country less than half the size of Co. Louth with 1.4 citizens and not allowing any civilans to leave the warzone. The fallacy is the belief that Israel has no options. This is patently false.

munchester29 wrote: »

Yes. It’s called “fog of war”. Israeli tanks have fired on and killed Israeli soldiers by mistake also.
If it is possible that the Israeli army kills its own soldiers by mistake, then it is also possible that they hit a UN school by mistake.
It is also possible (and even makes sense) that what Israel is claiming is true – Hamas uses schools and UN facilities to launch attacks against Israel, hoping that more civilians get killed by Israeli response, to inflict the only damage they can on Israel – PR damage.

Yes, the old "fog of war" phrase that gets trotted out a bit too often around here.

Why aren't foreign media allowed in? Why is Israeli media banned from showing footage of the conflict? It would appear that Israel is embracing the "fog of war" and encouraging it as much as they can.

Harolds+

What amazes me is that the Americans are concerned about Iran and its "rogue" regime

Since whe did the US care about the well being of Iranians?

Maybe they should go after Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe where a real dictator lives and kills his own people...oh wait, no oil there : (

PeakOutput

taconnol wrote: »

Unlawful according to which laws? Israel's?

no no international law its already been discusse in detail in this thread

using white phosphorous for illumination or smoke screens in built up areas is acceptable if fired from artillery if i remember correctly

therefore israel are not breaking any international laws

Harolds+

PeakOutput wrote: »

no no international law its already been discusse in detail in this thread

using white phosphorous for illumination or smoke screens in built up areas is acceptable if fired from artillery if i remember correctly

therefore israel are not breaking any international laws

Emm but Israel wont ADMIT it is using white phosphorous
they are using word games

Israel doens't care about the US or YOU so why try to be pedantic?

Macha

PeakOutput wrote: »

no no international law its already been discusse in detail in this thread

using white phosphorous for illumination or smoke screens in built up areas is acceptable if fired from artillery if i remember correctly

therefore israel are not breaking any international laws

The use of white phosphorous as a weapon – as opposed to its use as an obscurant and infrared blocking smoke screen – is banned by the Third Convention on Conventional Weapons which covers the use of incendiary devices. Though Israel is not a signatory to the convention, its military manuals reflect the restrictions on its use in that convention.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/israel-gaza-phosphorus-civilians

Israel may not be subject to it as it is not a signatory but there is international law on the topic.

I must have missed earlier discussion on it.

PeakOutput

taconnol wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/israel-gaza-phosphorus-civilians

Israel may not be subject to it as it is not a signatory but there is international law on the topic.

I must have missed earlier discussion on it.

your own quote says 'as a weapon'

they are not using it as a weapon

and i dont care if israel care about me they care about their citizens which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for hamas who today apaprently said they will continue to fight on weather israel agree to a ceasefire or not

Macha

PeakOutput wrote: »

your own quote says 'as a weapon'

they are not using it as a weapon

As I already said, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck..

I don't see how Israel can use WP as a smokescreen/illumination, in doing so injure and kill civilians and then claim that they are not using it as a weapon. Or is all that's needed the phrase "unintentional" and all is forgiven?

PeakOutput wrote: »

and i dont care if israel care about me they care about their citizens which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for hamas who today apaprently said they will continue to fight on weather israel agree to a ceasefire or not

Sloppy argument. It's the same as saying "Israel isn't as bad as X or Y, so what are you complaining about?"

"apparently"? Can you even be bothered to provide a source? Hamas have clearly stated their terms for a ceasefire:
-withdrawal of Israeli troups within 7 days
-removal of blockade.

But according to you, Hamas would be acting in the best interests of Gazans by failing to enforce these terms?

TOMASJ

munchester29 wrote: »

I, for one, don’t really feel that Israel should apologize for anything. This is all Hamas’s fault.

These two young children (assuming they are younger than 14 because otherwise they might actually be Hamas recruits), died because of the Hamas leadership and their genocidal intentions towards Israel, as all the civilians who died in this conflict.

Yes they were under 14, funny how you have no information on Palestinian victims and when it come to anything concerning the Israelis you are completely up to scratch.

Hamas are using their own people as a pawn in a propaganda war, and that is why Palestinian civilians die.
As much as Israel tries, they can never avoid civilian casualties completely in such a war, in which their opponent uses their own people as shields.

They could try and minimise civilian causality by engaging Hamas on the ground, but I guess it takes guts to fight on the same terms as a inferior armed third world outfit like Hamas, and guts are something the current IDF do not have.

If you are looking for someone to blame here, point the finger at the Hamas leadership and Iran, not at Israel who is only defending itself against a terrorist organization that have only one goal in mind

You say below the only war Hamas can win is the propaganda war
then go on to describe how fearful Israel is of Hamas plan for the destruction of the state of Israel, and the murder and expulsion of all the Jews in it, never heard of propaganda killing anyone yet.

Golda Meir (Israeli PM) has been quoted saying:
“ We can forgive you (the Palestinians) for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.”

back to the sound bites and crocodile tears.

This is exactly what Hamas is doing – making Israel kill more Palestinian civilians so they can win the only war against Israel they can win – the propaganda war.

Yes and the Vietnamese were responsible for having the US bomb them to kingdom come,
how dare anyone fight against an invading force especially in their own country

Macha

TOMASJ wrote: »

back to the sound bits and crocadile tears.

That quote actually makes me sick. It is completely disgusting.

Harolds+

Journalists are not allowed into the Gaza strip because they will show the true picture of what is happening

I suppose Hamas killed 6 ambulance personnel and 3 journalists and maybe they shelled a UN school and shelled a few UN compounds - are you for real!

Stop watching Skynews

TOMASJ

using white phosphorous for illumination or smoke screens in built up areas is acceptable if fired from artillery if i remember correctly

a bit like saying its ok to fire a gun and kill someone as long as you held the gun in your left hand and not you right hand

PeakOutput

taconnol wrote: »

"apparently"? Can you even be bothered to provide a source?

i was out for a run at the time listening to the radio on my phone so it was newstalk news. thats what they said hamas has said. i have heard the other stories about hamas's terms of ceasefire which is why i said apparently

and they are not just 'not as bad' they are not even in the same league. i was responding to a stupid argument that because they dont care about me i shouldnt agree with them

unintentional / intentional is a very important concept weather you like it or not

But according to you, Hamas would be acting in the best interests of Gazans by failing to enforce these terms?

were did i say that? make your own argument dont put words in my mouth people in this thread are already way too open to suggestion as it is

You say below the only war Hamas can win is the propaganda war
then go on to describe how fearful Israel is of Hamas plan for the destruction of the state of Israel, and the murder and expulsion of all the Jews in it, never heard of propaganda killing anyone yet.

another ridicolous comment. do you think israel should wait for them to gain power and weapons. sure they might as well restrain themselves until hamas has a nuke just so they are on the same playing field.

to win a war you MASSIVELY OVERWHELM your enemy if you can at all. you dont wait until they can kill as many as you can

a bit like saying its ok to fire a gun and kill someone as long as you held the gun in your left hand and not you right hand

its actually not like saying that at all......at all :rolleyes:

its actually like saying that its ok to fire a starter pistol in the air or its ok to use toy pellet guns, its not a weapon, it is still dangerous though.

Nodin

munchester29 wrote: »

Well, if people are quoting Palestinian sources and the Guardian, nothing wrong with a little Memri for balance.

The Guardian? Spare me. Either disprove whats in the article, or take your lumps.

And if somebody here discounted sources purely because they were Jewish, they'd be torn apart. I fail to see how you can get away with blanket condemning Palestinians.

munchester29 wrote: »

The UN human rights council is proud to have amongst its members countries like China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Angola – not exactly the best example for human rights protectors – yet has no problems issuing biased declarations in regards to human rights issues in Israel.

...which rather conveniently shifts focus away from whether or not there are human rights issues in regards to Israel. Those states may well be hypocrtical, but that doesn't make them nessecarily wrong.

Macha

PeakOutput wrote: »

i was out for a run at the time listening to the radio on my phone so it was newstalk news. thats what they said hamas has said. i have heard the other stories about hamas's terms of ceasefire which is why i said apparently

Fair enough.

PeakOutput wrote: »

and they are not just 'not as bad' they are not even in the same league. i was responding to a stupid argument that because they dont care about me i shouldnt agree with them

Sorry, I didn't see that bit.

However, you're right about them not being in the same league. Israel has managed to kill many, many more people than Hamas has.

PeakOutput wrote: »

unintentional / intentional is a very important concept weather you like it or not

Really? You really think so? You should tell that to the families of the 600 or so civilians that were "unintentionally" killed. Honestly, this is such nonsense. If I burned down your house and said I did it unintentionally, would you thus absolve me of all guilt?

Ill say it again: Israel's use of WP and bombardment of the incredibly densly populated Gaza strip from afar, utterly negates any claims that they did not intend to kill civilians. To use the same analogy, it's like me saying I didn't meant to burn down your house but I left the christmas lights on and all the candles burning when I left. Actions speak louder than words.

PeakOutput wrote: »

were did i say that? make your own argument dont put words in my mouth people in this thread are already way too open to suggestion as it is

Apologies I genuinely misread what you wrote.

concussion

"Israel plans ceasefire, Hamas vows to fight on"

Israel may be winding up

"The goal is to announce, subject to cabinet approval, a suspension of military activities because we believe our goals have been attained," said the official, asking not to be named.

Hamas doesn't want to unless it gets some concessions from Israel

A Hamas official in Beirut said earlier the militants would keep fighting until Israel met their demands, mainly for an end to a crippling economic blockade.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5053R720090117

As for WP, there's a big difference between rounds designed to explode on impact and the smoke rounds which are being used. The former uses an explosive charge to send lots of tiny particles out at high speed. Think burning shrapnel. Get hit with that and you'll have the effects described in detail all over the net.
The smoke rounds contain much larger chunks moving at low velocity. The photographs from Gaza show this - they've fallen maybe 100 feet onto concrete etc and they stay in one piece. They're too big to lodge in your clothing and hair or embed themselves in you skin like shrapnel.

Used in the anti personnel role by itself it's not very effective - however most soldiers would know that smoke = enemy movement and enemy movement = attack. This makes people think twice about staying in a known location so they leave cover and get hit with high explosive rounds instead.

Manic Moran

The use of white phosphorous as a weapon – as opposed to its use as an obscurant and infrared blocking smoke screen – is banned by the Third Convention on Conventional Weapons which covers the use of incendiary devices

Lads, you're arguing the wrong point.

Whether the IDF is admitting to its use as a weapon or not is somewhat irrelevant. The Guardian is spreading FUD (Fecked up data).

If the newspaper actually bothered to quote the protocol on incendiary weapons instead of saying what it thinks is right or what it's hearing from other places, one would note that there is no blanket prohibition on the use of WP (or any incendiary munition or system) against personnel or equipment.

The amount of FUD with respect to the laws of war is actually quite impressive. "Can't use .50 cal on troops", "can't use hollow-tip ammo" etc etc. Even in the military many of these old wive's tales have great traction.

NTM

TOMASJ

its actually not like saying that at all......at all :rolleyes:

its actually like saying that its ok to fire a starter pistol in the air or its ok to use toy pellet guns, its not a weapon, it is still dangerous though.

You completely missed the point PeakOutput

in earlier posts from from concussion, he states that W P is legal from a aircraft but not from from artillery pieces,

As I said what difference what method is used to fire it , if the end result is dead children.

Manic Moran

in earlier posts from from concussion, he states that W P is legal from a aircraft but not from from artillery pieces,

Other way around.

As I said what difference what method is used to fire it , if the end result is dead children.

One is dead children who were prima facia illegally killed, the other is dead children who were not prima facia illegally killed.

If people are going to go around claiming 'war crimes!', it's an important distinction. Not to the kids, but the kids are't claiming 'war crimes' either.

NTM

uprising

PeakOutput wrote: »

no no international law its already been discusse in detail in this thread

using white phosphorous for illumination or smoke screens in built up areas is acceptable if fired from artillery if i remember correctly

therefore israel are not breaking any international laws

I'm sick of hearing this same waffle over and over, Israel fired white phosphorous down on Gaza on the very first day, evidence can be found at the start of this forum, it was neither used as a smokescreen or illumination because (this is the tricky part.....for you), the troops were still beyond the border and it was in daylight, so my intelligence suggests it was a weapon, yet yours suggests otherwise, can you still not get it?

TOMASJ

[quote=Manic Moran;

O

One is dead children who were prima facia illegally killed, the other is dead children who were not prima facia illegally killed.

If people are going to go around claiming 'war crimes!', it's an important distinction. Not to the kids, but the kids are't claiming 'war crimes' either.

If it was you children (if you have any) would the legal jargon matter

makl

on the boycott issue, tried to buy herbs, as usual, most stock israeli herbs, except aldi, dont know bout lidl. went to superquinn, then aldi, who were sold out, then dunnes, then tesco and bought a basil plant instead. whether u support boycott or not, the choice should be there

uprising

Theres too much jargon and bullsh1t international laws this and that, its all boloxology, inside us all,(except psychopaths) theres something that tells right from wrong, what has happened in Gaza is wrong, its a crime, its dispicable, its disgusting and anybody who defends it is likewise.

uprising

makl wrote: »

on the boycott issue, tried to buy herbs, as usual, most stock israeli herbs, except aldi, dont know bout lidl. went to superquinn, then aldi, who were sold out, then dunnes, then tesco and bought a basil plant instead. whether u support boycott or not, the choice should be there

listen theres kids blown to bits and you come to complain about herbs? are you serious?

PeakOutput

TOMASJ wrote: »

OIf it was you children (if you have any) would the legal jargon matter

thats one of the problems with your side of the argument it is coming from an emotional rather than a logical place. you cant reason with emotions. thats not to say it is a bad thing or a character flaw or anything its just a different way of viewing situations.

I'm sick of hearing this same waffle over and over, Israel fired white phosphorous down on Gaza on the very first day, evidence can be found at the start of this forum, it was neither used as a smokescreen or illumination because (this is the tricky part.....for you), the troops were still beyond the border and it was in daylight, so my intelligence suggests it was a weapon, yet yours suggests otherwise, can you still not get it?

so you believe that israel are using smoke bombs and illumination munitions to deliberately kill civilians instead of using the actual advanced killing machines they have? it dosnt make any sense. if their aim was the deliberate killing of palestinian civilians the number of dead would be in the tens of thousands

they are NOT deliberately killing civilians and no matter how many different ways you say what you believe there is no proof to the contrary. NONE

Theres too much jargon and bullsh1t international laws this and that, its all boloxology, inside us all,(except psychopaths) theres something that tells right from wrong, what has happened in Gaza is wrong, its a crime, its dispicable, its disgusting and anybody who defends it is likewise.

finally someone else who sees the actions of hamas the same way i do :rolleyes:

As I said what difference what method is used to fire it , if the end result is dead children.

manic has already explained what the technical difference is. but your statement implies something else. is an action wrong just because it will result in children dieing? if you can seperate from your automatic emotional responce for a second and think about the world we would be living in now because people did not act because of the possibility of collateral / civilian / children / deaths / damage then you should be able to see my point

Matt Holck

uprising wrote: »

I'm sick of hearing this same waffle over and over, Israel fired white phosphorous down on Gaza on the very first day, evidence can be found at the start of this forum, it was neither used as a smokescreen or illumination because (this is the tricky part.....for you), the troops were still beyond the border and it was in daylight, so my intelligence suggests it was a weapon, yet yours suggests otherwise, can you still not get it?

as I understand,
these were in general hitting stone buildings.

I don't think this assault was meant to destroy and kill
by to instill terror into the residents
so they might flee
a bit more of an incentive than dropped leaflets

PeakOutput wrote: »

so you believe that israel are using smoke bombs and illumination munitions to deliberately kill civilians instead of using the actual advanced killing machines they have? it dosnt make any sense. if their aim was the deliberate killing of palestinian civilians the number of dead would be in the tens of thousands

they are NOT deliberately killing civilians and no matter how many different ways you say what you believe there is no proof to the contrary. NONE

I sure they were aware
before they fired white phosphorous down on Gaza
there would be casualties.

if the intent was to shock and awe,
they could have thrown fireworks above there heads.

______________

Time Bandits - Part 12/12

PeakOutput

TOMASJ wrote: »

As I said what difference what method is used to fire it , if the end result is dead children.

one can be very accurate (thus limiting the casualties) and one can be very inaccurate and is more suited to blanket bombing(and therefore far more likely to kill the children you are talking about)

people make the argument about war crimes and then when proved wrong they change to 'what difference does it make if its illegal its a crime .....blah blah uninformed blah'

its not illegal its not a crime but it is a tragedy the only thing that needs to be argued is the cause of the tragedy and in my opinion the cause is the terrorist organisation in control of 1.5million people in gaza

the cause is not israels hate of palestine. why arent the troops in west bank indescriminately killing civilians there? because the west bank were not lobbing rockets at them and continue to try and reach their goals threw diplomatic means

uprising

PeakOutput wrote: »

they are NOT deliberately killing civilians and no matter how many different ways you say what you believe there is no proof to the contrary. NONE




finally someone else who sees the actions of hamas the same way i do :rolleyes:

Finally firstly, I dont share your views on anything, your a death cheerer who tries to gloss it over with complex words and a twisted view, your great at explaining emotional views and such nonsense, are you void of compassion, intelligence and understanding to take the view you do, your like a programmed robot who's afraid to think that a government can actually murder intentionally and get away with it, which they do and because of too many people thinking like you

concussion

TOMASJ wrote: »

If it was you children (if you have any) would the legal jargon matter

It would, however, matter to the court.
If a civilian is in an area of fighting and is accidentally hit and killed by a bullet fired at a military barracks - it's tragic but not a crime
If a civilian is in an area of fighting and is accidentally hit and killed by shrapnel from a bomb dropped on a military barracks - it's tragic but not a crime.
However, if a civilian is in an area and is hit and killed by an expanding bullet, that would be a crime.

TOMASJ wrote: »

in earlier posts from from concussion, he states that W P is legal from a aircraft but not from from artillery pieces,

As I said what difference what method is used to fire it , if the end result is dead children.

It's the other way round. And that convention only covers incendiary attacks, ie, attacks designed to cause massive fires in urban areas.

Bullets, bombs and high explosive shells are all perfectly cabable of killing children but they're not banned - why do you think that is? The restrictions on inceniary attacks are there to stop people burning entire cities to the ground, not to stop children being killed, harsh as that sounds.:(

uprising wrote: »

I'm sick of hearing this same waffle over and over, Israel fired white phosphorous down on Gaza on the very first day, evidence can be found at the start of this forum, it was neither used as a smokescreen or illumination because (this is the tricky part.....for you), the troops were still beyond the border and it was in daylight, so my intelligence suggests it was a weapon, yet yours suggests otherwise, can you still not get it?

Like I said above -

concussion wrote: »

Used in the anti personnel role by itself it's not very effective - however most soldiers would know that smoke = enemy movement and enemy movement = attack. This makes people think twice about staying in a known location so they leave cover and get hit with high explosive rounds instead.

dublincelt

Matt Holck wrote: »

as I understand,
these were in general hitting stone buildings.

I don't think this assault was meant to destroy and kill
by to instill terror into the residents
so they might flee


______________

Time Bandits - Part 12/12

That is the craziest excuse I have EVER heard for the justification of using WP in a built up area. :rolleyes:

Flee where exactly???

John Ging has said that there is NOWHERE safe for residents anywhere in Gaza.

concussion

dublincelt wrote: »

That is the craziest excuse I have EVER heard for the justification of using WP in a built up area. :rolleyes:

Flee where exactly???

John Ging has said that there is NOWHERE safe for residents anywhere in Gaza.

Well that's one of the reasons it's used against trained soldiers, I'd imagine it would do the same to civilians....

However, like has been said so many times here, use it against militants to get them moving and then hit them with explosives. There don't neccessarily have to be IDF troops in the vicinity for the arty to be in action