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.
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by MikeboydUS
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.
Originally posted by MikeboydUS
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.
Israel has tightened sanctions on Gaza since June, when the Islamic militant group Hamas seized control of the territory, routing the Fatah forces of western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
The United Nations condemned the Israeli measures, saying they are leading to a humanitarian crisis among Gaza's 1.5 million residents. John Ging is a senior U.N. official in Gaza.