Israel 'admits' using white phosphorus munitions, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 03:46 PM by rationaluser
Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by budski


White Phosphorous is legal to use, Israel used it, and this is a ridiculous thread, for the sole purpose of working up the anti-Israel group.

This has been done time, and time again. WP is in just about all military inventories, and its use is multiple.

I call BS.

Launching rockets by non-uniformed combatants is a war crime too, but you don't seem to get very worked up over that.

You seem to be highly selective in who you criticize.


"White Phosphorous is legal to use"
show me evidence that says white phosphorous is legal to use because clearly civvilians deserve to get their skin eaten by this nasty foul substance TBH id rather get blown up by a rocket than lose use of my arms. I call BS on your THEORY and unless you can back it up don't post it.


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 03:49 PM by MikeboydUS
reply to post by budski


Hamas as a matter of policy has violated far more conventions and international laws than Israel ever has.

The idea that somehow being "weaker" excuses them is moronic.

Persons on both sides have committed crimes. Hamas as a matter of official policy engages in war crimes.

One cannot excuse and ignore the other.


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 03:53 PM by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by MikeboydUS


I never said I excuse their actions. Only that I understand them.

However, like I have pointed out, the use of these phosphorous shells is terroristic in approach. Pure and simple.

They have already shown a capability to AVOID these actions if they wish. Hamas, on the other hand, does not have the technology OR THE MANPOWER to wage an effective ground war with Israeli forces. So, naturally, they will wage a "stick and move" campaign against them...

The argument of "but they are doing it from civilian populated areas" stinks like unflushed toilet water. The truth of the matter is, they don't have ANYWHERE ELSE TO WAGE THE WAR FROM!!! They cannot simply INVADE Israel. Not if they hope to stand a chance.

I'm sorry if people can't see this simple logic.



[edit on 21-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 03:55 PM by deltaboy
Originally posted by budski


Once again, I refer you to the GC - your opinion is irrelevant.

The treaty of 1980 forbids the use of WP in civilian area's, as does the GC
Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
CHAPTER III.-CIVILIAN OBJECTS
Article 52.-General protection of civilian objects
1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military of advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

source


Here are some phrases you overlooked.


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 03:55 PM by rationaluser
Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by budski

Yep. The picture is perfectly clear. If you would only read your own crap, you'd see clearly as well.

The legality issue is not a matter of whether civilians are present or not, but if you are going after legitimate military targets. This would include rocketeers, rocket launchers, ammo dumps and storage, and visual tracking of identified enemy.

Therefore under the Geneva rules that you just mentioned, the use of any weapon, including WP is perfectly legal under 4a, 4c, ChapIII, items 1,2, and 3.

Don't get hung up too much on the technicalities. When you have an indentified enemy, you are able to kill the hell out of them, and if some unfortuanate is standing nearby, it just too bad.

This happens enough, and no one wants to be in the vicinity of these Hamas buttholes. It just didn't happen enough in this case.

And as far as morality goes, a soldier has a moral and fiduciary responsibility to kill his enemy where he finds him, using any means possible.

To not kill his enemy, is to continue the suffering of innocents, and thus an immoral act of omission.


and where do you see a militant or a rocket launcher in a basketball court????


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 03:57 PM by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by deltaboy


Please see my above post for a reason as to why this is unavoidable.

The use of the phosphorous is overkill and EVERYONE HERE knows it, whether they will admit it or not.


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 04:05 PM by deltaboy
reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Overkill? Depends on your perception of what is overkill or not. Using a 2,000 pound JDAM on a sniper hide in a building or a vehicle.






reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 04:09 PM by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by deltaboy


A couple of videos of bombs blasting targets doesn't do anything to bolster the claim that phosphorous shells should be used...

Like I said before, maybe next time they can just use napalm. Afterall, it is effectively the same thing.

But wait, that wouldn't be "right", would it?


[edit on 21-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 04:14 PM by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Jay-in-AR


That "understanding" is what helps perpetuate this mess.

The only understanding should be the one where the killing needs to stop.

Both sides engage in psychological terrror, by far Hamas is the primary user. Historically, when irregular forces use terror and guerilla tactics the larger power ends up applying merciless scorched earth tactics. Unlike foreign powers involved in conflicts in Vietnam and Algeria, the Israelis
are going nowhere. They will not give up or give in. There is nothing in Hamas' power that they can do to win. All they can do is terrorize and traumatize the Israeli civilians. The Israelis inturn will react more and more violently to the terror and trauma.

The only real solution to this is for Hamas to stop. They do not have the power to fight Israel conventionally much less achieve their objectives. All they can do is perpetuate the terror and trauma to the point that Israel finally has a nervous breakdown and razes Gaza in a fit of rage.

There needs to be a new understanding on both sides. An understanding that this war will not achieve anything but more violence and suffering. It is a self perpetuating conflict that must end. Civilians on both sides are suffering. The hate, the scapegoating and the hypocrisy must end.


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 04:21 PM by deltaboy
reply to post by Jay-in-AR


They should have used napalm but instead they use WP, why? Are they that afraid?


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 04:21 PM by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by MikeboydUS


Sorry dude, I stopped reading your post when I got to the point of you calling Hamas an "irregular force"... Do you not think that if they had the resources and the manpower to face their aggressor head on that they wouldn't?
Do you think that if they had a 500,000 man army with cutting edge technology that they would still wage that "stick and move" campaign?

Hell no, they wouldn't. They would fight head on as proud soldiers. However, they don't have that capability. Based in large part, on the fact that it is these same evil scum-bastards that have kept them from advancement.
With no small amount of help from the USA, I might add.
Face it, we kick them in the dirt when they are down and then we bitch about it when they use guerilla tactics against us.

My point is that anyone with a level head on their shoulders should understand precisely why they are doing this. Sadly though, most Westerners in general, are so damned brainwashed that they are going to put their money behind the folks that ARE THE REAL CRIMINALS HERE. You know, the ones who send in CIA type agents to wreak havoc upon their governments to create inner turmoil and then use their economic power to prop up a DICTATOR sympathetic to their desires...
Spare me, I am SICK AND FOCKING TIRED OF PEOPLE APOLOGIZING FOR THIS STUFF!

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES is phosphorous munitions acceptable in a civilian area.
NONE.

And ESPECIALLY when that civilian area is the ONLY AREA THEY HAVE LEFT!

Edit to add - And I think it is STUPID to expect Hamas to stop what they are doing. NOBODY on this planet would willingly let their home be taken over by a bunch of rogue criminals. Nobody. The man that says he would is a coward.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 04:23 PM by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by COOL HAND


I would consider your logic to be the military equivalent of NAFTA.

Free trade agreements are only logical when the labor-forces work on the same pay scale. Anything else is sheer folly.


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 04:26 PM by MikeboydUS
reply to post by deltaboy


I would say more reserved.

Had this been US forces in Gaza thousands of civilians would be dead and there would of been very little restraint. Case in point, Fallujah, Iraq. Somewhat comparable to Gaza in size and mission. We flattened half the city, used white phosphorous and thousands of civilians were killed in roughly a month.

The Israelis are far more sensitive to civilian casulaties than the MSM portrays them and far more sensitive than we are.


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 04:27 PM by rationaluser
reply to post by COOL HAND


Fine let israel continue killing civillians indiscriminately i mean it's not as if hezbollah is going to get involved by fireing rockets over the border....OH WAIT THEY DID.


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 04:28 PM by deltaboy
reply to post by MikeboydUS


You guys wouldn't have flatten half the city if the insurgents had listen to your advice and pull out into the desert.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 7 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 8 days ago with 72 member flags
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
  Posted 1 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 19 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 7 days ago with 49 member flags