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: 19
21
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


the sources also contain articles condemning the actions of hamas - is that equally tainted and unreliable?

If you had bothered to read them you would know this.

Now, AGAIN, why do you deny the accuracy of these reports from the UN and humanitarian organisations, bearing in mind that they also comdemn hamas's actions against israel?



Once again-



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.



Hamas exploits schools, mosques, hospitals and cultural centers to carry out its attacks in flagrant violation of article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This factor is minimized or ignored by numerous NGOs, and the emphasis is placed on Israel to avoid civilian casualties. But international law is clear: in cases of human shields, civilian deaths that result are clearly the responsibility of Hamas and not Israel.



NGO claims that Israel deliberately targets civilians or does not attempt to distinguish between civilian and military targets are entirely without foundation. The NGOs leveling these charges do not possess military expertise, detailed information on the dispersal of weapons by Hamas, and they are not privy to Israeli targeting decisions. Such information is essential in order to make a credible evaluation of Israeli military responses to the thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas.


NGO=Humanitarian Organizations, if you were uncertain about that. The fact that they do(and have done) these things as well as the other previously mentioned points, causes me to take all of their assertions with a grain of salt. I really don't know how else to put it. You can either except the fact that I don't believe everything they say, or not. It is why I have the views that I do though.

Source


Mod edit: added link to source.

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

[edit on 1/29/2009 by Hal9000]




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


the fact that your source is actually sponsored by israeli foundations means nothing then?

The UN and the links I provided have very clear opinions on hamas, and are highly critical of them - but because they are also highly critical of israels actions and use of WP and flechettes you dismiss them.

You dismiss all evidence from all sources that are not pro israel, and then have the nerve to accuse others of bias.

Face it - you don't have a leg to stand on
as has been proven over and over.

Pathetic sources, an extremely weak argument and a refusal to look at any source that is not pro israel.

I'm afraid that the world is at it is because of attitudes like this.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


the fact that your source is actually sponsored by israeli foundations means nothing then?

The UN and the links I provided have very clear opinions on hamas, and are highly critical of them - but because they are also highly critical of israels actions and use of WP and flechettes you dismiss them.

You dismiss all evidence from all sources that are not pro israel, and then have the nerve to accuse others of bias.

Face it - you don't have a leg to stand on
as has been proven over and over.

Pathetic sources, an extremely weak argument and a refusal to look at any source that is not pro israel.

I'm afraid that the world is at it is because of attitudes like this.




How is it not hypocritical to dismiss sources that aren't anti-Israel, yet use sources that are anti-Israel, and then accuse me of being biased? You haven't proved anything other than an unwillingness to accept any ideas that don't fit neatly in your world view. I'm at least honest enough to admit the lens I'm looking through. You don't even take the time to address what my sources are saying- you merely say accuse them of being pro Israel, so they must be false.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


you say this and yet immediately dismiss the UN and Hum Org links simply because they have evidence of isreal wrongdoing, despite the fact that they also show evidence of hamas wrongdoing.

The fact is, as I previously said, any poster could come up with absolute proof but you would still dismiss it because you don't like it.

End of story.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


you say this and yet immediately dismiss the UN and Hum Org links simply because they have evidence of isreal wrongdoing, despite the fact that they also show evidence of hamas wrongdoing.

The fact is, as I previously said, any poster could come up with absolute proof but you would still dismiss it because you don't like it.

End of story.



If somebody provided a source that didn't have a past history of doing the things I've pointed out in previous posts, then I wouldn't dismiss the reports out of hand.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I'd believe that if it weren't for the fact that you dismiss the UN and Hum org sources out of hand despite the fact that they critisize both sides.

In other words nothing is suitable unless it's pro israeli - and none of those are going to say anything against israel, so my point stands.

You simply won't believe that israel is capable of wrongdoing.

Congratulations, you have been successfully brainwashed by your superiors and the pro israel MSM.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 

Budski, I'm well aware it's no longer the sixties, but you may want to pass that along to the Palestinian Hamas turds you seem to be so close to.

I've read your "proof", I've read your "evidence," and to tell you the truth, based on your wild assumptions and speculative postulations, you couldn't convince me that the sun rises in the east, much less sets in the west.

Merely hammering biased postulations and claims is not proof.

There were no incidents that violated international law, and you can keep strumming this same chord time and again, but your so-called proof is a joke.

But let's watch and see what happens.

One of us will be correct, and the other will be wrong.

Proof.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


"...you couldn't convince me that the sun rises in the east, much less sets in the west. "

And that is the problem isn't it....

The Facts just don't matter to you ;-)


p--a--r--t--y--l--i--n--e-----------------*Tow that party line!



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


You show me a fact, and I'll have no problem seeing it.

You show me BS, and everyone can smell it.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


As I said, plenty of members including myself have posted photo's, links to the UN and human rights orgs - this proof is good enough for governments but not for you.

And what have you brought to the table?
The automatic gainsaying of anyone who argues against you - no proof, nothing.

Oh, and some "nam" stories which are as credible as the "proof" you bring.

I really should have taken note of springers sig, and stuck to that philosophy.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 



you couldn't convince me that the sun rises in the east, much less sets in the west.


Fistly, the sun does rise in the east and it does set in the west.


Because the Earth is rotating from the west to the east, everything on the celestial sphere will apparently move from the east to the west. This is why the Sun rises from the east
www.physics.hku.hk...


There were no incidents that violated international law, and you can keep strumming this same chord time and again, but your so-called proof is a joke.


This is a link to previous breaches of international law. It includes a description of the events and the breachs in law which coinsides with them.
www.geocities.com...

Although it is not specific to the Dec/Jan conflict it shows various breaches which Israel has made.

This is one of the breaches in the Dec/Jan conflict:

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Geneva, 17 June 1925
www.icrc.org...

Here is a video showing the use of white phosphorous by Israel on Gaza
au.youtube.com...

I hope this is enough proof.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I'd believe that if it weren't for the fact that you dismiss the UN and Hum org sources out of hand despite the fact that they critisize both sides.

In other words nothing is suitable unless it's pro israeli - and none of those are going to say anything against israel, so my point stands.

You simply won't believe that israel is capable of wrongdoing.

Congratulations, you have been successfully brainwashed by your superiors and the pro israel MSM.



It's not that I think that Israel can do no wrong. I just don't believe that whatever wrongs may occur are a matter of public policy. In other words, I don't believe the plan of the Israeli government or population as a whole has a goal of genocide. If the IDF wanted to cause mass casualties or wipe out the population of Gaza, they could do that pretty quickly.
As for sources- if I saw Reuters, or US News and World Report, or the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, etc.. say that Israel had committed attrocities, I'd far more inclined to find it credible, than using the Guardian or BBC, or Al Jazeera, or the Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Originally posted by Obliterated




Fistly, the sun does rise in the east and it does set in the west.


Pssst, that was sarcasm he was using, and not a literal assertion.






Here is a video showing the use of white phosphorous by Israel on Gaza
au.youtube.com...

I hope this is enough proof.


No one's arguing that WP hasn't been used. The debate is over how it's been used.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I'd say that the use of WP in an area as densely populated as gaza falls under the category of deliberate policy with malice aforethought.

In other words, they knew they would kill, maim and severely injure civilians and just didn't care.

The reported use of flechettes also falls into this category.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I'd say that the use of WP in an area as densely populated as gaza falls under the category of deliberate policy with malice aforethought.

In other words, they knew they would kill, maim and severely injure civilians and just didn't care.

The reported use of flechettes also falls into this category.



This would fall under the military necessity outweighing the risks, rather than the intentional targeting of civilians. There is no prohibition against attacking a foe, just because there are non-combatants around. You should try to mitigate risks whenever possible, but you attack the enemy where they are, not where you'd like them to be.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I disagree - how can you target one of the most densely populated area's in the mideast, if not the world and NOT expect to have massive civilain casualties.

WP was also used even before israeli troops entered gaza, so the idea of it being used as a smokescreen just doesn't wash.

If the israeli's were truly using it as a smokescreen, then it should only have been used when the Israeli troops were moving in to gaza itself - and even then, it should have been used in some form other than airburst, whatever the altitude - after all, they were sending in troops and tanks, not armed flying monkeys.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Willie P is a very good munition. The only thing they can do better is use NAPALM. Sticks great



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
You've showed photos of strikes, wounded, and dead. This occurs in combat operations. No proof of intent, no proof of willful targeting of civilians. No proof.

Links to UN incidents and reports likewise do not constitute intent, no proof of willful targeting. Anyone who's been remotely associated with combat will tell you of unintentional misses, misfires, and strays.

These inadvertent misses explain Blue on Blue. After all, no one intentionally targets their own people.

All that stuff the Gazans are shooting up in the air? Unless Newton's laws have recently been rescinded, that stuff is coming down somewhere.

I don't have to bring anything to the table. I'm not the one making wild claims.

And Obliterated. Nowhere, in any definition, is WP considered a gas weapon. Especially when it's exploded high in the air.

Get out a book, and learn the difference between gas agents and chemical agents. Big difference. Big.

The sorry state of our current education system is likely the reason for all this misunderstanding. Few can read the nuggets of a law, few can use logic, few can understand the word, "intentionally" and few can tell the difference between an oxidizing liquid chemical and a gas agent.

Firing artillery or dropping bombs in populated areas does not equate with intentionally targeting civilians. No matter how badly you want it to, this does not constitute proof of intent.

If Israel were to willfully target civilians, they would have deconstructed all populated areas. This wasn't done.

Targeting was selective. This alone is proof of avoiding the willful, intentional targeting of civilians.

And you guys missed the whole thing behind the WP use.

Ever watch a magician? While he has you watching one thing, the real thing he's doing is more easily concealed.

Israel used WP and misdirection to hold the attention of Hamas in one direction, while they quietly went about their main business in the south.

Apparently you missed it, you haven't figured it out, or you don't want to.

But that doesn't surprise me.

Looks like Israel fooled someone besides Hamas.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Ok. I'll admit i'm a bimbo in the weapons department. But i know you can't use White Phosphorous in civilian areas. The whole of Gaza is a civilian area.

As for non-intentional targetting of civilians.... there are little babies with bullet holes through their heads and chests. Isn't that a war crime and a crime against humanity?

To shoot, you AIM then fire...don't you? I don't have any kids yet, but when/if i do become a mother, if some army guy shot my baby i would die killing them. They kill babies...and you're ok with this?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Obliterated
 


You bring up a very good point. Babies and such, shot in the head. Ever really think about that?

Go online and look at all the Hamas jerks that are firing their AK's. You'll note that most of the time, these cowboys hand it around a corner, and just let it spray.

Now, mulitiply that by a thousand, and you tell me exactly where those rounds are hitting. Do you know?

Hamas fighters don't either. They have no idea where those AK rounds are going. And they'll shoot for hundreds of yards, and still be fatal.

One other thing. Notice how they love to make noise and shoot up in the air.

Where are those bullets going? Hell, they don't know.

But I can assure you, they are coming down somewhere, and unless they shot perfectly straight up, there's going to be a lot of velocity on those rounds that can penetrate a window nearly a mile away.

By contrast, I see the Israelis, who are well-trained, selecting and engaging specific targets.

Now, who is the most dangerous to civilians?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join