It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israel 'admits' using white phosphorus munitions

page: 16
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


This is coming from the United Nations people that there on the ground,
who have verified that Israel used them against civilians,

the UN are pro HAMAS now?

whats so hard to comprahend?
Israel used Weapons which are banned by the UN to use in heavily populated areas and on civilians.

shocked how many people try and justify using this stuff on civilians




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


Zero, you bring up a very good point that most seem to ignore. Folks rather raise cain about air bursts of WP.

Recently the good citizens of Gaza wanted all Israelis out, and they wanted Gaza's borders to be defined and respected.

So Israel pulls out. Bulldozed Israeli settlers homes after literally dragging Israeli settlers out.

Fine. All Israelis are now out of Gaza.

Now we have a definitive Gazan border.

Much like in Europe and Britain did centuries ago with the fencing off of property, and as the US began to do in the late nineteenth century, Israel has now fenced off it's property, to preclude these Gazans from shuffling suicide bombers across the border.

So Gaza got what it wanted, it's own land.

Israel said fine, we'll fence yours from ours.

Gaza got exactly what they wanted. But Gaza isn't happy with that.

So they launch rockets across the border into Israel, and Israel counterattacks. The weapons don't matter, especially when they are used in the traditional military manner.

Every nation has a right to fence or seal its borders.

Too bad for Gaza.

This is what they wanted.

You really have to be careful what you wish for.

And when you get it, don't start asking for more.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Dooper says

"Zero, you bring up a very good point that most seem to ignore. Folks rather raise cain about air bursts of WP.

Recently the good citizens of Gaza wanted all Israelis out, and they wanted Gaza's borders to be defined and respected.

So Israel pulls out. Bulldozed Israeli settlers homes after literally dragging Israeli settlers out.

Fine. All Israelis are now out of Gaza.

Now we have a definitive Gazan border.

Much like in Europe and Britain did centuries ago with the fencing off of property, and as the US began to do in the late nineteenth century, Israel has now fenced off it's property, to preclude these Gazans from shuffling suicide bombers across the border.

So Gaza got what it wanted, it's own land.

Israel said fine, we'll fence yours from ours.

Gaza got exactly what they wanted. But Gaza isn't happy with that.

So they launch rockets across the border into Israel, and Israel counterattacks. The weapons don't matter, especially when they are used in the traditional military manner.

Every nation has a right to fence or seal its borders.

Too bad for Gaza.

This is what they wanted.

You really have to be careful what you wish for.

And when you get it, don't start asking for more."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You are right! every nation DOES have the right to seal their borders but if that nation happens to be an occupying power then under international law they do not have the right to impose a siege on the people that they are occupying.
Siege against an occupied territory is considered to be an act of war
Therefore HAMAS rocket attacks are a justified response to the siege.
An act of war to combat an act of war!
Israel has an obligation to provide the people of gaza with all they need to survive in comfort
If Israel doesnt do this then they are in breach of international law
Also using white phosphorous in civilian areas is a clear cut war crime.
There can be no debate on this
any attempt to argue this point should be treated as the nonsense Israeli propaganda that it obviously is

You might argue that HAMAS rocket attacks are indiscriminate targeting of civilians and a war crime.
I agree.
But a siege is also indiscriminate targeting of civilians
this is also a war crime
It is known as collective punishment

[edit on 27-1-2009 by tonytone]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by tonytone]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by tonytone]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


This is coming from the United Nations people that there on the ground,
who have verified that Israel used them against civilians,

the UN are pro HAMAS now?

whats so hard to comprahend?
Israel used Weapons which are banned by the UN to use in heavily populated areas and on civilians.

shocked how many people try and justify using this stuff on civilians


You use the word UN as a monolithic term. The UN has members from all over the world, with varying agendas and ideologies, and they aren't all particularly great characters. There are also plenty of examples of "UN" personnel conducting themselves very poorly.


www.telegraph.co.uk...

warnewsupdates.blogspot.com...

www.time.com...

www.foxnews.com...

www.opinionjournal.com...


In other words, just because it's the UN, doesn't mean that it's UNbiased.
I'm not gonna sit here and say that there haven't been unintended casualties, as there obviously have been. I am skeptical of claims that Israel intentionally targetted non-combatants, the total numbers of casualties, and that the preponderance of casualties have been non-combatants. This would be akin to saying that Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters that were attacked, but weren't armed at the time were civilians/non-combatants. Hamas is in that same category. My sympathies are for woman and children who've been caught up in this mess. So long as these organizations operate in the midst of civilians, there's going to be unfortunate collateral damage, but to assign all blame on Israel is a bit disengenuous.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


And yet I seem to remember you being very vociferous about UN resolutions used as an excuse to attack Iraq, and Iraq allegedly breaking the same UN resolutions - this was what you yourself used to justify the iraq invasion, regardless of whether WMD's had been found.

So which is it?
You can't have it both ways....



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


And yet I seem to remember you being very vociferous about UN resolutions used as an excuse to attack Iraq, and Iraq allegedly breaking the same UN resolutions - this was what you yourself used to justify the iraq invasion, regardless of whether WMD's had been found.

So which is it?
You can't have it both ways....


And neither can you.

I personally have little use for the UN aside from various humanitarian activities they sometimes manage to pull off successfully. Sometimes their treaties and Resolutions have some level of success as well, when you don't have scandals going on in the background(i.e. Oil for Food, or in laymans terms- I'm getting oil money and weapons contracts from Saddam, so I'm opposed to the US screwing that up) As for Iraq here's the hard facts.

Iraq agreed to binding agreements at the end of Desert Storm, which if violated could result in resumption of hostilities. Part of those agreements was full disclosure and cooperation on and WMD programs/stockpiles, and the cessation/destruction of them. Iraq failed to meet its obligations. Every government/intel agency in the world believed Saddam had WMD. Iraq was warned by the UN security counsel to comply. The US House/Senate voted to give President Bush authority to use military force.
There were no other higher authorities that needed to give their permission, based upon these facts.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Nope - every government with a vested interest "sexed up" the documents to make it LOOK like intel agencies had told them saddam had WMD's.

See David Kelly for details.

The UN is considering charging Israel with war crimes - that tells me all I need to know.

You can be as hypocritical as like - you're fooling no-one except yourself.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Nope - every government with a vested interest "sexed up" the documents to make it LOOK like intel agencies had told them saddam had WMD's.

See David Kelly for details.

The UN is considering charging Israel with war crimes - that tells me all I need to know.

You can be as hypocritical as like - you're fooling no-one except yourself.



Well we shall have to see how that turns out. Of course it's pretty hypocritical to only condemn one side, while giving the other a free pass, as well.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


OK, let's see - first you tried to derail the thread by arguing (incorrectly) about the article headline, then you spend a few pages trying to build a "case" around a technicality, while completely ignoring all the evidence presented to you and now you try to put words in my mouth.

I have NEVER said that hamas is innocent - only the women and children that the israeli's indiscriminately targetted in an illegal fashion with their use of disproportionate force and ideal of collective punishment.

Clear?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

The advisory has been issued following Israel's concern that international arrest warrants may be issued against officers who were involved in the Israeli offensive in Gaza, on charges of war crimes.
Jerusalem has reportedly received several reports suggesting international human rights groups are in the process of gathering evidence in the form of photos and testimonials, with the intent of filing suits both with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague and in local European courts.

While the State is likely to be able to thwart such attempts in The Hague, having suits of this nature filed with local European courts quashed is more complex: Many of the European courts have taken it upon themselves to hear cases of alleged war crimes perpetrated in other countries, even if they themselves have no affinity to the case.

Once a European court decides to hear such a case, it is within its right to issue bench warrants for the alleged criminals – in this case top politicians and military personnel – and that is a move the State might find difficult to undo.
I wonder if Israel now fears that their leaders will start being hunted down, kidnapped, and deported for war crimes like Mossad has done with the Nazi war criminals? Karma is a b*tch..

[edit on 27-1-2009 by LLoyd45]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by tonytone
 


My friend, never in history has sealing a border been called a siege. You may wish to look up a siege.

In fact, they didn't seal Gaza off. Gaza has another border with Egypt. Israel can't seal off Gaza.

Israel is not occupying Gaza.

Try again.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


they haven't closed the borders - they have built a wall to fence them in

Big difference.

Image

Image

People cheered when the berlin wall came down.

The same people were cheering as this one went up.

This is known as disproportionate reaction and collective punishment.

The WHOLE of the population is being punished for the actions of the few.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


OK, let's see - first you tried to derail the thread by arguing (incorrectly) about the article headline, then you spend a few pages trying to build a "case" around a technicality, while completely ignoring all the evidence presented to you and now you try to put words in my mouth.

I have NEVER said that hamas is innocent - only the women and children that the israeli's indiscriminately targetted in an illegal fashion with their use of disproportionate force and ideal of collective punishment.

Clear?


No- not at all. Accusation of something doesn't = guilt. If any crimes have been committed, they'll have to be proven. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to get words out of your mouth such as- It is wrong for Hamas(or any other terror group) to kill Israelis for political purposes. Additionally - Israel has a right to exist, and any solution between them and the Palestians must be a peaceful one. Hamas(and any other terror group) needs to immediately renounce violence, and come to a compromise solution that both sides can agree to.

If.....you were to say something along those lines, I might start thinking that you were objective.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Originally posted by LLoyd45


I wonder if Israel now fears that their leaders will start being hunted down, kidnapped, and deported for war crimes like Mossad has done with the Nazi war criminals? Karma is a b*tch..

[edit on 27-1-2009 by LLoyd45]


You're kidding right? The "war crimes" that the Mossad did to the Nazi war criminals? Bad Karma for bringing mass murderers to justice?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I am, but that is not the title or the purpose of this thread.

Write a thread about how hamas are failing in their duty to their people, and I'll give my point of view on it, just as I posted about how the UK achieved a lasting peace in NI in this very thread when there was fault on both sides., but a lack of disproportionate violence, and just as I have stated in this thread that israel does have the right to exist.

Until then, I'll give my point of view on the israeli attacks and use of WP, which they had previously denied and then admitted.



[edit on 27/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by dooper
 


they haven't closed the borders - they have built a wall to fence them in

Big difference.

Image

Image

People cheered when the berlin wall came down.

The same people were cheering as this one went up.

This is known as disproportionate reaction and collective punishment.

The WHOLE of the population is being punished for the actions of the few.



Care to explain why Egypt won't let them out either, if Israel is the bogeyman here?

mydailyclarity.com...

www.weeklystandard.com...

www.honestreporting.com...



FOREIGN MEDIA REPORTING REALITY?

As more foreign journalists gain access to Gaza, different viewpoints from the default attacks on Israel are starting to emerge. Newsweek talked to gunmen who admitted using a hospital for firing at Israel:

One of the most notorious incidents during the war was the Jan. 15 shelling of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society buildings in the downtown Tal-al Hawa part of Gaza City, followed by a shell hitting their Al Quds Hospital next door; the subsequent fire forced all 500 patients to be evacuated . . . In the Tal-al Hawa neighborhood nearby, however, Talal Safadi, an official in the leftist Palestinian People's Party, said that resistance fighters were firing from positions all around the hospital. He shrugged that off, having a bigger beef with Hamas. "They failed to win the battle."

www.newsweek.com...


www.telegraph.co.uk...



Daily Telegraph correspondent Tim Butcher returned to Gaza for the first time since the war:

I knew Gaza well before the attacks, so when Israel ended its ban on foreign journalists reaching Gaza on the day the ceasefire was announced, I was able to see for myself.

One thing was clear. Gaza City 2009 is not Stalingrad 1944. There had been no carpet bombing of large areas, no firebombing of complete suburbs. Targets had been selected and then hit, often several times, but almost always with precision munitions. Buildings nearby had been damaged and there had been some clear mistakes, like the firebombing of the UN aid headquarters. But, in most the cases, I saw the primary target had borne the brunt. ...

But, for the most part, I was struck by how cosmetically unchanged Gaza appeared to be. It has been a tatty, poorly-maintained mess for decades and the presence of fresh bombsites on streets already lined with broken kerbstones and jerry-built buildings did not make any great difference.


www.ngo-monitor.org...


The NGO Front in the Gaza War: Exploitation of International Law-

The exploitation of international legal rhetoric is a major weapon in the political war to delegitmize Israeli anti-terror operations. Under this strategy, crystallized at the NGO Forum of the UN's 2001 Durban Conference, the terminology of international humanitarian (IHL) and human rights law is selectively applied to charge Israel with "violations of law," "crimes against humanity," "war crimes," "disproportionate force" and "indiscriminate attacks." In contrast, the violation of Gilad Shalit's human rights and Hamas' use of human shields are ignored. NGOs use the legal language to increase the credibility and seriousness of the charges, and in the Gaza conflict, many are already calling for international "investigations" and "lawfare" (i.e. filing lawsuits against Israeli officials in different countries) based on these accusations. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO have reaped significant political benefits from this strategy in their conflicts with Israel.


Hmmm, this bit of news doesn't make Israel bashing so neat and tidy.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I am, but that is not the title or the purpose of this thread.

Write a thread about how hamas are failing in their duty to their people, and I'll give my point of view on it, just as I posted about how the UK achieved a lasting peace in NI in this very thread when there was fault on both sides., but a lack of disproportionate violence, and just as I have stated in this thread that israel does have the right to exist.

Until then, I'll give my point of view on the israeli attacks and use of WP, which they had previously denied and then admitted.



[edit on 27/1/2009 by budski]


But how can you discuss alleged war crimes on one side, and ignore the other side, because that's a different discussion?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Because this thread is NOT about egypt - refer to my previous answers.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT ISREALI USE OF WP - not the egyptians, not what hamas have done.

It's about Israel admitting the use of WP when they had previously denied it.

Now, is that clear enough?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Because this thread is NOT about egypt - refer to my previous answers.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT ISREALI USE OF WP - not the egyptians, not what hamas have done.

It's about Israel admitting the use of WP when they had previously denied it.

Now, is that clear enough?



Israel admitted to using WP lawfully though. It's the Israel bashers that keep omitting that tidbit.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Originally posted by LLoyd45


I wonder if Israel now fears that their leaders will start being hunted down, kidnapped, and deported for war crimes like Mossad has done with the Nazi war criminals? Karma is a b*tch..

[edit on 27-1-2009 by LLoyd45]


You're kidding right? The "war crimes" that the Mossad did to the Nazi war criminals? Bad Karma for bringing mass murderers to justice?
I consider what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians just as criminal as what the Nazis did to the Jews. The Mossad has ruthlessly hunted down and prosecuted Nazi war criminals without any regards to international law.

Now that they themselves are committing equally atrocious acts against another ethnic group, I fail to see where turnabout shouldn't be considered fair play. Attempted genocide is attempted genocide regardless of who's doing it.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join