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: 17
21
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45

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.


A- They ruthlessly hunted down people that were responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews and another 6-10 million from other groups.

B- How exactly is the Palestinian situation in any way analogous to what the Nazis did? Is Israel bent on killing every Palestinian because they aren't Aryans, and are therefore subhuman scum(which was what the Nazis felt)

C-There is no attempted Genocide going on. What is happening is Israel attempting to dismantle Hamas.




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


It's not for Israel to decide whether they used it lawfully - it's up to observers and international law to decide that.

Hell, ted bundy could say he killed all those women lawfully - that doesn't make it true.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


It's not for Israel to decide whether they used it lawfully - it's up to observers and international law to decide that.

Hell, ted bundy could say he killed all those women lawfully - that doesn't make it true.



If you fired WP against combatants in accordance with the Law of Warfare, and didn't use it for its toxic fumes in enclosed spaces, then it is lawful. It would only be unlawful to specifically target civilians or to use it for its toxic fumes.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
A- They ruthlessly hunted down people that were responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews and another 6-10 million from other groups.
I'm not going to argue the actual numbers with you, but it's safe to say they're wildly exaggerated. Even the Red Cross disputes the figures.


B- How exactly is the Palestinian situation in any way analogous to what the Nazis did? Is Israel bent on killing every Palestinian because they aren't Aryans, and are therefore subhuman scum(which was what the Nazis felt)
The Israelis are persecuting and murdering Palestinian on a daily basis while confiscating their land and property. How does this differ from what the Nazis did? Jews or at least the Zionist think everyone that isn't Jewish is a (Goyim) and therefore subhuman.


C-There is no attempted Genocide going on. What is happening is Israel attempting to dismantle Hamas.
How many people does it take to constitute a genocide? What's the magic number in your opinion? By the way, Hamas was a creation of the Mossad.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   


If you fired WP against combatants in accordance with the Law of Warfare, and didn't use it for its toxic fumes in enclosed spaces, then it is lawful. It would only be unlawful to specifically target civilians or to use it for its toxic fumes.


Right, but they are specifically targetting civillians. They're just saying they're not.

See this is why there are loopholes, so armies can use useful, but banned weapons in war. They just use em anyway, and lie about the situations and deployment.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Once again THAT IS NOT FOR ISRAEL TO DECIDE that is for the UN and the observers on the ground to decide.

Ans the way it looks so far, they are saying that israel deliberately targetted civilians with WP - which they had previously denied even using.

Unless of course you are a member of the Knesset or high up in the israeli chain of command and you can tell us different?
If not you're just blowing smoke.
Again.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


bud, if you and I have property next to each other, and I fence, or wall my property off, it's none of your business.

You take care of your side, and I'll take care of mine.

Very simple concepts.

But apparently so very difficult to understand.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


If Ted Bundy was targeting Hamas in bombings and in artillery strikes, and these women were killed in the process, then he would have been justified.

Really wretched analogy, this Ted Bundy thing. Kind of reminds me of a bottom of the barrel type analogy.

Don't you think?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Nope, because anyone can claim innocence - and the point is, it's not for them to decide.

And if by building a wall you cut off my fuel, food and electric, then by your logic I would be quite justified in "gittin mah gun"



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja


If you fired WP against combatants in accordance with the Law of Warfare, and didn't use it for its toxic fumes in enclosed spaces, then it is lawful. It would only be unlawful to specifically target civilians or to use it for its toxic fumes.


Right, but they are specifically targetting civillians. They're just saying they're not.

See this is why there are loopholes, so armies can use useful, but banned weapons in war. They just use em anyway, and lie about the situations and deployment.


But who is reporting this- Hamas, or non-biased sources. If the case were as clear cut as you all are making it, there wouldn't be any discussion needed. That's the problem- it's not obvious to all that civilians are being SPECIFICALLY targetted.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Once again THAT IS NOT FOR ISRAEL TO DECIDE that is for the UN and the observers on the ground to decide.

Ans the way it looks so far, they are saying that israel deliberately targetted civilians with WP - which they had previously denied even using.

Unless of course you are a member of the Knesset or high up in the israeli chain of command and you can tell us different?
If not you're just blowing smoke.
Again.



And...Unless of course you are a member of the Knesset or high up in the israeli chain of command and you can tell us different?
If not you're just blowing smoke.
Again.


This holds true for you too. The issue here is that you don't find my info sources credible, nor do I find yours credible. The puts us at an impasse.
I don't think any Arab media source is going to have any objectivity about Israel, which makes me take anything I hear from them with a huge grain of salt. The same can be said for any far left leaning source.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Originally posted by LLoyd45


I'm not going to argue the actual numbers with you, but it's safe to say they're wildly exaggerated. Even the Red Cross disputes the figures.


I'm not even going to dignify sources that downplay or deny the holocaust.
Revisionist history is a very dangerous thing.


The Israelis are persecuting and murdering Palestinian on a daily basis while confiscating their land and property.


Wrong- that's a load of .....


How does this differ from what the Nazis did? Jews or at least the Zionist think everyone that isn't Jewish is a (Goyim) and therefore subhuman.


Wrong- how many Jewish people do you actually know by the way to formulate this obviously "moderate" opinion?


How many people does it take to constitute a genocide? What's the magic number in your opinion? By the way, Hamas was a creation of the Mossad.


Genocide to me means that one group is trying to eradicate another group, and mass killing is involved. I don't have a specific number in mind, but I suggest you look at other examples that might give you the kinds of numbers that are more typical.
Nazis-
Soviet Union-
Cambodia-
East Timor-
Iraqi Kurds-
Ottoman Empire-
Rwanda/Sudan(Darfur)
Bosnia-

I don't consider casualty figures that are in the hundreds to constitute genocide.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Once again you obfuscate and try to cloud the issue with nothing to back you up other than your own opinion.

www.un.org...

www.hrw.org...

Israeli Army Used Flechettes Against Gaza Civilians

Use of WP 1

Use of WP 2

Use of WP 3


Britain's Deputy U.N. Ambassador Karen Pierce told reporters before the meeting that London believed some of the allegations against both Israel and Hamas militants warranted further investigation, though not necessarily by the United Nations.

"I do think there are some credible allegations of the use of things like white phosphorus, which bear investigation," she said, adding the initial probe should be undertaken by Israel.

White phosphorus munitions can cause extreme burns. The Israeli military has opened an investigation into white phosphorus use during the conflict.

Reuters

So even the Israeli military has opened an investigation into the use of WP.


A suspected phosphorus victim was taken from Gaza across the border into Egypt yesterday. Abdul Rahman Shaer, 16, was transferred to an Egyptian hospital from Rafah. He was suffering from severe chemical burns to his face and body. Paramedics from Gaza said that doctors at the hospital were sure the chemical agent was phosphorus.

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) reiterated that they would not comment on specific weaponry being used in Gaza but added that any ammunition used by the IDF was “within the scope of international law”.

The Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas but there is no blanket ban under international law on its use as a smokescreen or for illumination.

Human Rights organisations have criticised the use of it in Gaza, saying that it was impossible to avoid exposing civilians to the chemical because Gaza is densely populated.

source

Video of WP used in gaza by Israel


The Israeli army used white phosphorus, a weapon with a highly incendiary effect, in densely populated civilian residential areas of Gaza City, according to indisputable evidence found an Amnesty International fact-finding team which reached the area last Saturday.

When white phosphorus lands on skin it burns deeply through muscle and into the bone, continuing to burn until deprived of oxygen.

Amnesty International’s delegates found still-burning white phosphorus wedges all around residential buildings on Sunday. These wedges were further endangering the residents and their property; streets and alleys are full of children playing, drawn to the detritus of war and often unaware of the danger.

The carrier shells which delivered the wedges were also still lying in and around houses and buildings. Some of these heavy steel 155mm shells have caused extensive damage to residential properties.

"Yesterday, we saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli army," said Christopher Cobb-Smith, a weapons expert who is in Gaza as part of the four-person Amnesty International team.

"White phosphorus is a weapon intended to provide a smokescreen for troop movements on the battlefield," said Cobb-Smith. "It is highly incendiary, air burst and its spread effect is such that it that should never be used on civilian areas.”

source

And some more reports from the BBC


There are my credible sources - now where are yours, and the israeli government giving out a statement doesn't count, and nor does the US government - we all know they are in bed together.
Hell, the US even has a ship on the way to deliver more WP as can be seen in one of the links posted - presumably because israel ran out whilst shelling civilians with it.

Like I said, you are blowing smoke, trying to justify that which can't be justified.

[edit on 28/1/2009 by budski]

[edit on 28/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


online.wsj.com...


Israel's actions in Gaza are justified under international law, and Israel should be commended for its self-defense against terrorism. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks. The only limitation international law places on a democracy is that its actions must satisfy the principle of proportionality.

Since Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, Hamas has fired thousands of rockets designed to kill civilians into southern Israel. The residents of Sderot -- which have borne the brunt of the attacks -- have approximately 15 seconds from launch time to run into a shelter. Although deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime, terrorists firing at Sderot are so proud of their actions that they sign their weapons.



www.terrorism-info.org.il...




5. That perception reflects an understanding of the relative forces between Hamas
(and its supporters) and the IDF’s capabilities. Hamas is well aware of the inequality
between the sides, which gives each side advantages and disadvantages.
i) On the one hand, Hamas is aware of the IDF’s clear military superiority in the
number of forces, protection, weapons, and air and intelligence capabilities. As a result,
Hamas is aware that it will be difficult for it to stop an IDF advance and to prevent it
from operating in open areas.
ii) On the other hand, if the IDF remains in the Gaza Strip in static
deployment and for an extended period of time, Hamas is liable to have the
advantage. It would wage a guerilla war of attrition, especially in densely populated
built-up areas. According to the classic logic of asymmetric warfare, the IDF would
lose its superiority, suffer many losses and harm, even if not deliberately, Palestinian
civilians in a way that would lead to internal-Israeli, Arab and international pressure for
the IDF to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

7. To exhaust the IDF forces and cause as many casualties as possible Hamas would seek to
wage a fiercer, more determined war the deeper into the Gaza Strip the IDF advanced.
Hamas fighting is expected to include firing light weapons at Israeli forces, including
from inside houses and roofs; digging traps in the ground at the entrances to cities and along
main routes; using IEDs, mines, car bombs and camouflaged IEDs; dispatching male and
female suicide bombers; the extensive use of anti-tank weapons; using civilians as human
shields for terrorist operatives who are fighting from within their midst.



bustingbbcbias.blogspot.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The BBC's claimed impartiality did not prevent weeks of anti-Israeli bias

www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News

www.honestreporting.com...

www.honestreporting.com...


DOUBLE STANDARDS - PROVING OUR POINT

In all of the above cases, the media failed to verify Palestinian claims, placing ultimate trust in "Palestinian eyewitnesses" or so-called "human rights" organizations that are actually Palestinian advocacy groups. All too often the media is happy to accept, without question, the Palestinian version of the story. And yet, we never see the Palestinian narrative described as "propaganda".

The current conflict is also taking place on the airwaves, in the printed press and online. Israeli spokespeople have quite legitimately taken the initiative to get the message out during the Gaza operation. The effectiveness (particularly when compared with past operations) has itself created news stories in some media outlets.

But why does the BBC's Paul Reynolds consider the Israeli message to be "propaganda?" And why does he treat IDF video sources with such skepticism, particularly in stark contrast to Palestinian sources? Instead Reynolds states:


The Israeli propaganda effort is being directed to achieve two main aims.

The first is to justify the air attacks. The second is to show that there is no humanitarian calamity in Gaza.

Both these aims are intended to place Israel in a strong position internationally and to enable its diplomacy to act as an umbrella to fend off calls for a ceasefire while the military operation unfolds.

Israel has pursued the first aim by being very active in getting its story across that Hamas is to blame. The sight of Hamas rockets streaking into Israel has been helpful in this respect.

It has also allowed trucks in with food aid and has stressed that it will not let people starve, even if they go short.

Israel appears to think its efforts are working.

One of its spokespeople, who has regularly appeared on the international media, Major Avital Leibovich, said: "Quite a few outlets are very favourable to Israel."

Why is this a "propaganda effort" and why should Israel have to justify defending its citizens against Hamas rocket attacks?


biasedbbc.proboards45.com...


Here's another case in point;
'Witnesses' have gone to the UN and accused Israel of shelling a place they had filled with civilians the day before. Israel checked the story and denied it as they had had no soldiers in that area on that day. The UN have accepted the witnesses version of events however and condemned Israel. Bearing in mind it's common knowledge that Hamas do have accidents with their armaments, usually situated in built up civilian areas to lessen the possibility of reprisal, and it's not the first time that explosions have been self made.

So one side claims something that is unsubstantiated by the other, without any proof, yet the UN accepts it as the truth, and the BBC is happy to run it as news.





Israel 'shelled civilian shelter'

Israel's offensive in Gaza has been under way for nearly two weeks
Israeli forces shelled a house in the Gaza Strip which they had moved around 110 Palestinians into 24 hours earlier, the UN quotes witnesses as saying.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) called it "one of the gravest incidents" since the beginning of the offensive.

The shelling at Zeitoun, a south-east suburb of Gaza City, on 5 January killed some 30 people, the report said.

Israel says it has looked into the allegations and they are unfounded.

Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said no Israeli soldiers had been in the area on the day the incident was supposed to have happened.

The OCHA report said: "According to several testimonies, on 4 January Israeli foot soldiers evacuated approximately 110 Palestinians into a single-residence house in Zeitoun (half of whom were children) warning them to stay indoors.

"Twenty-four hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing approximately 30."

The UN said those who survived and were able walked 2km to the main north-south road to be transported to hospital in civilian vehicles.

"Three children, the youngest of whom was five months old, died upon arrival at the hospital," the report said.

'No safe haven'

Allegra Pacheco, of OCHA in Jerusalem, said they were not accusing the Israelis of a deliberate act, but said the incident needed to be investigated.

She also said they were concerned at claims by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that ambulances were only allowed access to the neighbourhood on Thursday - four days after the alleged incident.

The ICRC on Thursday accused Israel of failing to fulfil its duty to help wounded civilians in Gaza.

"In Gaza, there is a severe protection of civilians crisis. There is no safe haven, no safe space, for all the civilians, particularly children," Ms Pacheco told the BBC.

"Since the ground operation, the number of children killed has risen by 250%."

An estimated 770 Palestinians and 14 Israelis have died in nearly two weeks of Israel's air and ground offensive against the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

The UN Security Council has called for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.



Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/28/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


And yet you say nothing about the israeli's own investigation and then have the nerve to post a BLOG as a credible source for justification into bombing civilian area's???

please also respond to the other articles posted rather than just cherrypicking a BBC link and trying to use it to AGAIN cloud the issue.

Those papers you quoted are also well known left wing publications - it seems they are OK when it suits you, and BBC "stars" admitted nothing of the sort in those links you posted, as far as israel is concerned and as for the blogs - words fail me


Not even a good try




Excert from the Mail:

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

source

As you can see, the BBC is pro islam and anti israel and christianity and is full of left wing liberals - from your own source.
I thought you had a real problem with left wing publications?
Not when it suits apparently


The telegraph link is a LETTERS PAGE, and has more to do with the fact that the BBC refused to air an aid advert for gaza, and the fact that ISRAEL WOULD NOT ALLOW NEWS CHANNELS TO FILM GAZA EVEN FROM OUTSIDE!

Pitifull






[edit on 28/1/2009 by budski]

[edit on 28/1/2009 by budski]

[edit on 28/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I used the blog, because of the links within the blog. Additionally the poster on the blog I quoted made a good point, which I'd love to hear refuted. What's your response to all the other links aside from the blog?

Here's my take on the IDF conducting an investigation, and what that means- The IDF has been accused of firing on civilians in certain areas. The IDF is investigating these claims to check their veracity. If they are substantiated, then I suspect the IDF will change procedures, and offer statements.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/28/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


And still you offer no proof for something you INSIST did not happen.

here's your opportunity to PROVE that israel didn't target civilians - something you so vehemently espouse must have proof somewhere surely?

Whereas I have provided plenty, along with the other posters in this thread.

My response to a blog?
None - it does not merit an answer because it does the same thing you do - relies on opinion and nothing else.

You are the one who has asked repeatedly for credible news sources - and YOU USE A BLOG AS A CREDIBLE SOURCE?
The hypocrisy is stunning.

You now have zero credibility.

Well done for embracing ignorance (sarc)



[edit on 28/1/2009 by budski]

[edit on 28/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


And still you offer no proof for something you INSIST did not happen.

Whereas I have provided plenty, along with the other posters in this thread.

You now have zero credibility.

Well done for embracing ignorance (sarc)



Typical-

expectations of disproof of a negative


What you've offered is PR statements from Hamas and anti-Israeli sources, that haven't been substantiated by sources that aren't Hamas and/or anti-Israeli.

I've given plenty of examples of your sources being questionable at best, yet you dismiss that outright, and then have the cajones to say I have no credibility.

You're certainly a master debater.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Wrong - the UN, amnesty, HRW and othe human rights organisations are all pro hamas and anti isreal are they?

You have brought nothing to this discussion except attempts to derail it from your very first post.

No proof, nothing.

I am not asking you to prove a negative - I am asking for PROOF OF WHAT YOU ARE ASSERTING AS FACT.

I won't hold my breath - you have no argument, and you know it.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
bud, if you and I have property next to each other, and I fence, or wall my property off, it's none of your business.

You take care of your side, and I'll take care of mine.

Very simple concepts.

But apparently so very difficult to understand.


Say you and I live next to each other. I have an orange grove on my property and you just have a house and a stream. Everyone in the town loves buying my oranges.

One day you find out that I have built a fence. Not along the original property line but along a new route that allows me to have access to your stream.

You have a right to be pissed but decide that you will be a man and do the diplomatic thing. You come over to my house and I won't even listen to you. We part ways with hot heads.

Then I publish an editorial in the local town paper claiming that you don't want me to grow any more oranges for the town. I say that you threatened to burn down all my trees if I don't move.

Rightly pissed, you destroy the fence and tell me to, "Stay the _expletive_ off my property, or I will make you get the _expletive_ off my property!"

I call the police and have you arrested for destruction of private property and for making a threat against my person. I use my connections in town hall to have the property lines changed while you are in jail. I have you further charged with two counts of trespassing. Because you had a hammer in your hand (destroying the fence) when you were arrested you are charged with two counts of felony trespassing.

While you are in prison, you fail to make the tax payments on your property and it goes up for a tax auction. I buy your property for pennies on the dollar and expand my orange grove.

The town praises me as a hero who stood up against that criminal "dooper." They put up a statue to "Voxel" and even name a street after me - "Voxel Grove." The people still love my oranges.

---

Congratulations, you have just been a victim of the same tactics Israel uses to confiscate land.

Very simple concepts.

But apparently so very difficult to understand.

Jon

[edit on 1.28.2009 by Voxel]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join